This is what happens when you abandon the pursuit of knowledge for ‘social justice’. Ideological bullshite leaking from every pore. It is sad to see a popular science magazine flame out and lose all credibility. :( James Esses documents SciAm’s fall from respectability.
“When you come across the longstanding magazine, Scientific American, you could be forgiven for assuming that scientific truth would play a pivotal role in its output.
But not any more, it seems. Scientific American, founded in 1845, is the oldest continuously published magazine in the United States. It has previously featured work by Albert Einstein, among others. However, in recent years, it appears to have been taken over by contributors who consider themselves activists first and scientists second. The magazine’s ethos now includes the express aim of ‘sharing trustworthy knowledge, enhancing our understanding of the world, and advancing social justice’ (my emphasis). It has also started to intervene in electoral politics, too. In 2020, Scientific American broke with a 175-year history of non-partisanship to endorse Joe Biden in the US presidential election.
Worst of all, when its articles touch on questions of gender and biological sex, Scientific American seems to have abandoned objective facts entirely, in favour of trans-activist pseudoscience.
In 2019, an article by Simón(e) D Sun, who identifies as a ‘transgender nonbinary woman’, tells us to ‘Stop using phoney science to justify transphobia’. The piece is, as you might expect, filled with ideologically driven language and easily disprovable claims. For instance, it asserts that sex is ‘assigned’ at birth when it is not – it is observed and recorded. It also suggests that ‘scientific endeavour is quantifiably better when it is more inclusive’. But what if ‘being inclusive’ requires us to deny the reality of biological sex? That would surely put inclusivity at odds with science.”


3 comments
October 31, 2023 at 7:32 am
tildeb
SciAm is an excellent example of how institutional capture occurs: by lead editor. That’s it. One person… a ideologue who gains a position of authority skews the entire institution into an activist body for that ideology rather than what it was designed to do. SciAm has lost ALL scientific credibility and it took all of two years to bring about. One editor.
LikeLiked by 1 person
November 5, 2023 at 1:01 pm
Green Eagle
You cite one single example, an article from several years ago, to make your claim. That sort of argument is hardly either scientific or American.
LikeLike
November 5, 2023 at 1:10 pm
The Arbourist
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/beyond-xx-and-xy-the-extraordinary-complexity-of-sex-determination/ – Sciam gender bullshit.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sex-redefined-the-idea-of-2-sexes-is-overly-simplistic1/ – Sciam gender bullshit.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-new-science-of-sex-and-gender/ – Sciam gender bullshit.
All four articles have been used in attempts to ‘disprove’ the sex binary and the immutability of sex in human beings. Sciam is not to be trusted when it comes to anything to do with biological science.
LikeLike