The Shameful Decline of Scientific American

Post by weeblewobble » Sun, Jan 16, 2022, 10:13 AM UTC

twofornone wrote: post #134

weeblewobble wrote: post #129

The opinion piece in question ( https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-complicated-l... ) strikes me as a restrained and sober attempt to explore the possibility that Wilson and others did bad science by presuming differences between races were due to genetics. Maybe you think the piece is wrong but it's just someone expressing some ideas, it's not intended to incite the woke mob or whatever. If anything, the…

>presuming differences between races were due to genetics Its not a farfetched presumption that natural selection continued after the emergence of the homo sapien species. What is less likely is the notion that evolution magically stopped above the shoulders while geographically distinct human groups spent thousands of generations adapting physically, culturally, and likely cognitively to drastically different enviro…

Post by weeblewobble » Sun, Jan 16, 2022, 10:14 AM UTC

maxlybbert wrote: post #153

weeblewobble wrote: post #129

The opinion piece in question ( https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-complicated-l... ) strikes me as a restrained and sober attempt to explore the possibility that Wilson and others did bad science by presuming differences between races were due to genetics. Maybe you think the piece is wrong but it's just someone expressing some ideas, it's not intended to incite the woke mob or whatever. If anything, the…

Every discussion about race seems to include a statement that “race” isn’t a scientific term and has no well-defined meaning. Race seems to be one group saying “those other people are different from us, and we don’t mingle with them.” I don’t consider it surprising for genetics researchers to compare distinct populations that have a long history of staying separate. I certainly don’t believe it’s evidence that the re…

Post by hiq » Sun, Jan 16, 2022, 10:50 AM UTC

andrew_ wrote: post #115

mmaunder wrote: post #83

Self-censorship is the other half of this problem. How many of us here have self censored our writing out of fear of painting a bullseye on our backs? The more you have to lose, the more cautious you are. If you’ve spent a lifetime studying a certain field, building a business or becoming a well know expert, you risk having it all taken away if you provoke the ire of the mob. And the mob has nothing to lose and every…

I see small, walled groups with vibrant and varied discussion re-emerging. I hear about new small groups/chats constantly; I'm a party to several. Discussion within is without fear of consequence, ideas are discussed objectively and in earnest. Disagreements are expected and welcome. Sometimes tempers flare but mutual respect is not lost and empathy is high. The soup of the day is candor, and it's delicious. It's a m…

Post by d0mine » Sun, Jan 16, 2022, 11:32 AM UTC

mmaunder wrote: post #95

jimkleiber wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your comment has me wondering about history and whether such previous drastic changes in communication technology have also brought waves of censorship, both by others and by ourselves. For example, with radio, the telephone, or even the printing press. In other words, not only the ability to publish/broadcast, but to have people reply to your publishing or broadcasting. I also wonder if we somehow adapt to it as we…

Those breakthroughs had gatekeepers, for better or worse. Publishing house owners, newspaper owners/editors, radio station supervisors and owners. For the first time in all of history we can all publish instantly to everyone else at no cost. It’s a very exciting time and is, unsurprisingly, fraught with problems.

Post by OldTimeCoffee » Sun, Jan 16, 2022, 12:32 PM UTC

ourmandave wrote: post #114

It's an opinion piece, not an article. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-complicated-l...