A critique of Scientific American

If you’ve read this site for a while, you’ll know that I’ve documented the decline and fall of the magazine Scientific American (see all my posts here). Under the editorship of Laura Helmuth, the magazine has become increasingly woke. And by “woke”, I mean “neglecting science in favor of pushing a progressive ideology.”  One of … Continue reading A critique of Scientific American

Scientific American on a philosophical grift: panpsychism

Well, Scientific American has published an article that, while on a subject of questionable interest, is at least neither woke nor wrong. The topic is panpsychism, which the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines this way: Panpsychism is the view that mentality is fundamental and ubiquitous in the natural world. The view has a long and … Continue reading Scientific American on a philosophical grift: panpsychism

The Lancet becomes the medical Scientific American

Here we have an editorial by the very editor of the British journal The Lancet, one of the world’s premier medical journals.  I agree with many of his sentiments, but the bloke hasn’t realized that he should keep the journal institutionally and politically neutral.  If he has personal views on politics, they should be kept … Continue reading The Lancet becomes the medical Scientific American

Confirmation bias from the editor of Scientific American

I almost never engage in Twitter wars, or in slagging people off via tweets, but the laws of physics compel me to highlight these two from Scientific American’s editor, referring to the article I discussed yesterday. It’s a good example of the circular “fallacy of opposition.” There was so much pushback against that article, and … Continue reading Confirmation bias from the editor of Scientific American

Scientific American continues to push ideology alongside science

There’s no longer any doubt that one of the main missions of Scientific American involves not the dissemination of science, but pushing a “progressive” Democratic ideology on its readers. What this has to do with science is beyond me. In fact, it has nothing to do with science; it has to do with the editor, … Continue reading Scientific American continues to push ideology alongside science

Scientific American is back to distorting the facts to buttress its ideology

It’s been a while since Scientific American has published misleading and distorted articles to buttress its “progressive” Left ideology, and I hoped they had shaped up. (To be honest, I haven’t followed the magazine, and got the following link from a reader.) My hope was dashed yesterday when I read this new article claiming that women … Continue reading Scientific American is back to distorting the facts to buttress its ideology

Speaking of Scientific American. . .

The latest webpage of Scientific American shows a big, bold, headline article that has nothing to do with science—at least as far as I know. Click on the screenshot to see the page, and then on this link to see the article on citizen militias, which of course decries them as white-supremacist organizations that constitute … Continue reading Speaking of Scientific American. . .

The best “science” stories of the year from Scientific American

Scientific American, once a respectable publication but now a woke joke of a rag, recently put out special edition highlighting the top science stories of 2022. (Click on cover to read.) I will make no comment except to say that the “epigenetics” article has none of the caveats about epigenetics in the nice piece by … Continue reading The best “science” stories of the year from Scientific American