I hadn't read SA in years, saw the articles, and immediately searched for "Scientific American going left".
The application of logic (or lack thereof) on the part of SA and your observations rang very true.
Of course we are all biased to whatever degree, but that really shouldn't matter and why I often retreat into STEM articles, publications etc. Very tired of partisan slants so I'll read basic fact driven data.
I still believe it's a good resource for those who can appreciate the liberal bias. But what of younger impressionable people who respect these publications?
Anyway, only came to say I value your insight and appreciate the effort.
Indeed, many years I have waited for this Recalcitrant Hebrew Shermer to be devoured by his own creation. Ironic thus, since he does not believe in Judaic Creation, due to MS being a member of the Atheist Religion, which railed against GW Bush and the White Church that put Bush in the Oval Office. Far too short-sighted, and far too pre-occupied with being the Michael Shermer of whatever it is he does, to realize that libelous liberalism he helped to enable along with Retard Dawkins, Christopher Bitchins, Scam Harris, and The Other Guy had come full circle these Squares now that it is racist to criticize the non-racial religion of Islam, the religion that was actually doing the terrorism that GW Bush was fighting to stop. Doubtless, they indubitably did become the Four Whoresmen ushering in these hellish attempts to end Our World. Truly, many an Embarrassed Atheist has been trying in the last ten years to re-identify as conservative now that they have seen The Terror of their ways, but I'm afraid you can't have your bananagate cake and eat it too. We have not forgotten, nor shall we forgive how you aided and abetted The Enemy, ploughing the fertile ground from which the seeds of wokeness have now Bloomberged. Young fool, only now, at the end, do you realize that the Atheist Religion leads to a literal dead end. Hence, you shall kvetch, but I assure you that you may remain to serve as wood-cutters and water-bearers to The Chosen, until you learn to use your "reason" to defend the Great White Civilization rather than licensing the Backward Barbaric Ape-like Savages and all such Ignorant Primitives from Inferior Cultures who wish to plunder and pillage the Superior Peoples of the Earth. Indeed.
Not hard to find them in the wild either. Apparently one of these Left fascist rodents got so excited and upset he posted in response to my comment rather than the lead post. They're like a socially acceptable version of Nazis - I call them Internazis. They've even gone back to beating up Jews again.
I was with you until you made it a "white" thing. No such thing as common racial identity, only common CULTURAL identity. No such thing as "white" supremacy, either; Aryan supremacy, WASP supremacy, Zionist supremacy, absolutely- and even then, members of the ethnicity not embracing the upheld ideology are also rejected. But no human being on the planet embraces all people of their own race, nor is their acceptance of any same race person decided solely on the basis of skin color any more than they do on the basis of hair or eye color. People are NOT merely their outward appearance.
In any case, Western Culture is worth preserving; it isn't bigoted to prefer it over other cultures.
FFS, this app needs comment editing! I can't even copy the original comment so I can quickly edit & replace it! REALLY sucks for what is supposed to be a WRITING app!
You’re as narrow minded as the so called ignorant primitives and inferior cultures you mentioned . Please come out of your narcissistic misinformed shelter and see the real world
I purchased a SciAm subscription last year in an effort to get away from all the sermonizing woke think pieces I saw proliferating throughout media, and was this immediately crestfallen to find that yes, even this formally respected science magazine had been fully captured. I started to dread each new issue.
I just cancelled my subscription for the new year, the final insult being their “click to subscribe, call to cancel” policy that should be illegal.
Good on you for calling them out Michael. Great piece.
Today many scientific papers are being retracted, or canceled, not because they are wrong, but because of their supposed “impact.” The mob expresses outrage over its inconvenient findings, and the paper is retracted. Invariably it’s claimed that the paper was “inaccurate,” with little or no support for that claim, and away it goes. This is neither science nor scholarship. Science must go, however tentatively, wherever the data seems to lead, but this is no longer possible in many cases. Retraction Watch is filled with such incidents. https://retractionwatch.com/2021/11/03/astronomer-apologizes-withdraws-preprint-slated-for-pnas-about-impact-in-the-field-after-criticism/
And then we are repeatedly admonished by self-proclaimed ‘smart’ people to “trust the science”! But it’s clear to any independent thinker that this is no longer wise, or even possible.
As for what term to use, I think at present “woke” is best, because it is widely understood. We all know exactly what it means. One can alternately say “Politically Correct,” an older term meaning the same thing, which recalls the essentially Stalinist outlook of its adherents. It does not matter what the facts are, the Party cannot ever be wrong, and Wrongthink must be opposed in every way possible. Even small infractions among true-believing Leftists are not tolerated. You must conform, or be attacked and excommunicated.
The “woke” ideology is a religion, in the full sense of that word. It informs one’s entire view of life and society, of virtue and sin, of one’s relation to the earth, etc. Perhaps the best name for that religion would be Identitarian, in that the identity one is born into is the primary determinant of one’s life and one’s role in society.
I have been reading Scientific American since I was 14. I am now 80. The magazine helped guide my education into Physics. I always read your articles. For me SciAm was a safe harbor--at least in the past. It was a place I could read evidence based articles. Not political opinion. After all these years I am sadly considering cancelling my subscription. Michael, keep up the good work.
I am astounded by the comments of your editor at Scientific American, particularly where they concern your rejected article. The irony is the scientific truck that could be driven through his comments!
The internal contradictions of wokism will lead to its downfall. On one hand it is stated that race is a socio-linguistic construct with little to no basis in Biology and on the other hand they claim that 35% of White College Applicants lie on applications claiming to be Native American (or other races). I am confused: if race is a socio-linguistic construct with no biological basis how can those students be lying when they self-identify as any particular race? If a person self-identifies as a gender other than their biological gender are they liars, too?
Anti-scientific environmentalism, reactionary worldview with a view of human beings as parasites, and progress as sin. And that passes for being leftist... Certainly, not leftist as Marx, Trotsky, Jean Jaurès, etc. More close to the Völkisch movement.
Although eco-socialists are invariable Marxists, it's correct to say that environmentalism, science-based or otherwise, has nothing to do with Marxism in practice. One need only look to the environmental record of Marxist states over the last century for verification.
Isn't the whole point of a column that it's the opinion of the author? It's independent writing and not necessarily agreed on by the editors? It's a pity you couldn't continue your long streak of consecutive columns, but luckily there are enough other ways to share your views.
I have wondered in recent years what is going on at Sci Am. I have read it for almost 50 years, and in the last few years I have seen many articles show little or no hard science content, and more disturbing is the trend towards soft science, and in many case as Micheal has written about poor science or even politically motivated science, which is of course rarely science at all. It is sad to see the venerable magazine slowly becoming another victim of made up "science". And of course there is no arguing with true believers, whether religious, or right wing, or in this case mostly left wing. I think it was very important that Sci Am stand up for science in the face of a possible Trump win. In that case it was a fact based position. However that was an exceptional circumstance. Regularly publishing nonsense as science, and censoring thoughtful essays is unacceptable. It may be time to consider unsubscribing from Sci Am. It will be a sad day, when the far left takes it over, and once again the voices of reason are shouted down.
Michael, thanks for telling the story of how your tenure at SciAm ended - I did wonder. I always looked forward to getting to the end of the magazine every month: there was your Skeptic article waiting to be read.
However, I am not surprised that you tangled with your editor in 2018. I couldn't help noticing a change of tone in your articles that year - you had moved on from science and scepticism to morality and politics. I read your articles anyway - Utilitarianism, Atheism, Google - but they were no longer scientific.
You criticise SciAm for diverging from science in 2021. Insofar as the magazine has done so, you are absolutely right. But this is what you did in 2018! Getting tangled up in intersectionism is good entertainment/journalism, but it isn't science.
You are too good to be just a journalist - keep it real!
I noted the hard left turn in SciAm many years ago. Fewer and fewer columns that addressed hard science, and more and more fluffy social commentary pieces that initially sounded like they had a basis in scientific methodology. But in fact, they were shallow opinion pieces. I dropped the magazine more than a decade ago.
The author used this terminology as well. So please explain, what on earth has wokism to do with being ‘left’? Historically being ‘left’ was an economic term, for someone who believed in putting the power in the hands of workers as opposed to the ownership class. I.e. for the working class to have a meaningful say in the decisions that affect their lives.
Wokism is entirely orthogonal to that. To me wokism is an extreme expression of liberalism, defined loosely as the belief in social equality and egalitarianism.
I consider myself solidly left econo-politically, and couldn’t be more against wokism. And to be frank, it really bugs me when people associate this wokish nonsense with leftism. Sometimes i think its a deliberate attempt to smear the econo-political left, but i think mostly its because in the US the terms liberal and left are often used interchangeably, but in fact they are very very different.
I fully agree with Michael's essay. I have been a subscriber to SciAm for 50 years. In the last year I have written to the Sci Am editor to complain about the loss of hard science and the switch to social issues. I told them that if I wanted progressive opinion writings I would listen to MNBC or CNN. I will write again and finally cancel my subscription.
Reality is that which when you are politically incorrect or un-woke doesn’t go away.
I hadn't read SA in years, saw the articles, and immediately searched for "Scientific American going left".
The application of logic (or lack thereof) on the part of SA and your observations rang very true.
Of course we are all biased to whatever degree, but that really shouldn't matter and why I often retreat into STEM articles, publications etc. Very tired of partisan slants so I'll read basic fact driven data.
I still believe it's a good resource for those who can appreciate the liberal bias. But what of younger impressionable people who respect these publications?
Anyway, only came to say I value your insight and appreciate the effort.
Indeed, many years I have waited for this Recalcitrant Hebrew Shermer to be devoured by his own creation. Ironic thus, since he does not believe in Judaic Creation, due to MS being a member of the Atheist Religion, which railed against GW Bush and the White Church that put Bush in the Oval Office. Far too short-sighted, and far too pre-occupied with being the Michael Shermer of whatever it is he does, to realize that libelous liberalism he helped to enable along with Retard Dawkins, Christopher Bitchins, Scam Harris, and The Other Guy had come full circle these Squares now that it is racist to criticize the non-racial religion of Islam, the religion that was actually doing the terrorism that GW Bush was fighting to stop. Doubtless, they indubitably did become the Four Whoresmen ushering in these hellish attempts to end Our World. Truly, many an Embarrassed Atheist has been trying in the last ten years to re-identify as conservative now that they have seen The Terror of their ways, but I'm afraid you can't have your bananagate cake and eat it too. We have not forgotten, nor shall we forgive how you aided and abetted The Enemy, ploughing the fertile ground from which the seeds of wokeness have now Bloomberged. Young fool, only now, at the end, do you realize that the Atheist Religion leads to a literal dead end. Hence, you shall kvetch, but I assure you that you may remain to serve as wood-cutters and water-bearers to The Chosen, until you learn to use your "reason" to defend the Great White Civilization rather than licensing the Backward Barbaric Ape-like Savages and all such Ignorant Primitives from Inferior Cultures who wish to plunder and pillage the Superior Peoples of the Earth. Indeed.
My review of your post:
Long on puns, short on coherence.
Good. Now imagine the same sentiments but from a Marxist perspective, and you'll have a rough approximation of wokeness.
Holy fuck, you just use fictional terms as if theyre real. Are all republican abject morons?
Not hard to find them in the wild either. Apparently one of these Left fascist rodents got so excited and upset he posted in response to my comment rather than the lead post. They're like a socially acceptable version of Nazis - I call them Internazis. They've even gone back to beating up Jews again.
I was with you until you made it a "white" thing. No such thing as common racial identity, only common CULTURAL identity. No such thing as "white" supremacy, either; Aryan supremacy, WASP supremacy, Zionist supremacy, absolutely- and even then, members of the ethnicity not embracing the upheld ideology are also rejected. But no human being on the planet embraces all people of their own race, nor is their acceptance of any same race person decided solely on the basis of skin color any more than they do on the basis of hair or eye color. People are NOT merely their outward appearance.
In any case, Western Culture is worth preserving; it isn't bigoted to prefer it over other cultures.
"...as they ARE on the basis of..."
FFS, this app needs comment editing! I can't even copy the original comment so I can quickly edit & replace it! REALLY sucks for what is supposed to be a WRITING app!
You’re as narrow minded as the so called ignorant primitives and inferior cultures you mentioned . Please come out of your narcissistic misinformed shelter and see the real world
So, the perpetual motion of Us vs. Them rolls along. Evil is created in the mind..... first.
I purchased a SciAm subscription last year in an effort to get away from all the sermonizing woke think pieces I saw proliferating throughout media, and was this immediately crestfallen to find that yes, even this formally respected science magazine had been fully captured. I started to dread each new issue.
I just cancelled my subscription for the new year, the final insult being their “click to subscribe, call to cancel” policy that should be illegal.
Good on you for calling them out Michael. Great piece.
just FYI, https://www.niemanlab.org/2021/11/the-end-of-click-to-subscribe-call-to-cancel-one-of-the-news-industrys-favorite-retention-tactics-is-illegal-ftc-says
I gave up about 7-8 years ago. It is agenda-based drivel.
Michael, I agree with your criticisms and concerns. And Scientific American is not the only scientific publication to be captured by political activists. For example, a recent paper in the supposedly respectable Journal of the American Psychiatric Association described “whiteness” as a “Malignant, Parasitic-Like Condition.” https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/research-article-in-medical-journal-describes-whiteness-as-malignant-parasitic-like-condition/ar-AAKSjAq
Today many scientific papers are being retracted, or canceled, not because they are wrong, but because of their supposed “impact.” The mob expresses outrage over its inconvenient findings, and the paper is retracted. Invariably it’s claimed that the paper was “inaccurate,” with little or no support for that claim, and away it goes. This is neither science nor scholarship. Science must go, however tentatively, wherever the data seems to lead, but this is no longer possible in many cases. Retraction Watch is filled with such incidents. https://retractionwatch.com/2021/11/03/astronomer-apologizes-withdraws-preprint-slated-for-pnas-about-impact-in-the-field-after-criticism/
And then we are repeatedly admonished by self-proclaimed ‘smart’ people to “trust the science”! But it’s clear to any independent thinker that this is no longer wise, or even possible.
As for what term to use, I think at present “woke” is best, because it is widely understood. We all know exactly what it means. One can alternately say “Politically Correct,” an older term meaning the same thing, which recalls the essentially Stalinist outlook of its adherents. It does not matter what the facts are, the Party cannot ever be wrong, and Wrongthink must be opposed in every way possible. Even small infractions among true-believing Leftists are not tolerated. You must conform, or be attacked and excommunicated.
The “woke” ideology is a religion, in the full sense of that word. It informs one’s entire view of life and society, of virtue and sin, of one’s relation to the earth, etc. Perhaps the best name for that religion would be Identitarian, in that the identity one is born into is the primary determinant of one’s life and one’s role in society.
Guess the real world is leaving your gaps of information and you behind.
I have been reading Scientific American since I was 14. I am now 80. The magazine helped guide my education into Physics. I always read your articles. For me SciAm was a safe harbor--at least in the past. It was a place I could read evidence based articles. Not political opinion. After all these years I am sadly considering cancelling my subscription. Michael, keep up the good work.
Michael is a scientifically illiterate moron. What are you talking about.
Jessica, please read my follow-up piece to this, "What is Woke, Anyway?" as that will perhaps help your brain hurt less. Here it is: https://michaelshermer.substack.com/p/what-is-woke-anyway?r=2xbjf&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&utm_source=copy
Gods, you are so dumb.
Doing science is hard work, doing politics is a cinch.
To paraphrase an old saw, those who can't do science and engineering do politics.
I am astounded by the comments of your editor at Scientific American, particularly where they concern your rejected article. The irony is the scientific truck that could be driven through his comments!
Indeed. A Hummer-size hole
As long as Michael Shermer continues writing, I will continue reading.
You'll continue reading ignorant trash? Interesting.
The internal contradictions of wokism will lead to its downfall. On one hand it is stated that race is a socio-linguistic construct with little to no basis in Biology and on the other hand they claim that 35% of White College Applicants lie on applications claiming to be Native American (or other races). I am confused: if race is a socio-linguistic construct with no biological basis how can those students be lying when they self-identify as any particular race? If a person self-identifies as a gender other than their biological gender are they liars, too?
An excellent point, JCB.
When they do those mental gymnastics you enticed them into, they will tear their mental Achilles AND ACL simultaneously.
Worse than Wokeism is the Green Religion.
Anti-scientific environmentalism, reactionary worldview with a view of human beings as parasites, and progress as sin. And that passes for being leftist... Certainly, not leftist as Marx, Trotsky, Jean Jaurès, etc. More close to the Völkisch movement.
Although eco-socialists are invariable Marxists, it's correct to say that environmentalism, science-based or otherwise, has nothing to do with Marxism in practice. One need only look to the environmental record of Marxist states over the last century for verification.
Isn't the whole point of a column that it's the opinion of the author? It's independent writing and not necessarily agreed on by the editors? It's a pity you couldn't continue your long streak of consecutive columns, but luckily there are enough other ways to share your views.
Bravo Dr. Shermer and thank you for your efforts. A per usual, your insights are a candle in the dark.
I have wondered in recent years what is going on at Sci Am. I have read it for almost 50 years, and in the last few years I have seen many articles show little or no hard science content, and more disturbing is the trend towards soft science, and in many case as Micheal has written about poor science or even politically motivated science, which is of course rarely science at all. It is sad to see the venerable magazine slowly becoming another victim of made up "science". And of course there is no arguing with true believers, whether religious, or right wing, or in this case mostly left wing. I think it was very important that Sci Am stand up for science in the face of a possible Trump win. In that case it was a fact based position. However that was an exceptional circumstance. Regularly publishing nonsense as science, and censoring thoughtful essays is unacceptable. It may be time to consider unsubscribing from Sci Am. It will be a sad day, when the far left takes it over, and once again the voices of reason are shouted down.
Michael, thanks for telling the story of how your tenure at SciAm ended - I did wonder. I always looked forward to getting to the end of the magazine every month: there was your Skeptic article waiting to be read.
However, I am not surprised that you tangled with your editor in 2018. I couldn't help noticing a change of tone in your articles that year - you had moved on from science and scepticism to morality and politics. I read your articles anyway - Utilitarianism, Atheism, Google - but they were no longer scientific.
You criticise SciAm for diverging from science in 2021. Insofar as the magazine has done so, you are absolutely right. But this is what you did in 2018! Getting tangled up in intersectionism is good entertainment/journalism, but it isn't science.
You are too good to be just a journalist - keep it real!
I noted the hard left turn in SciAm many years ago. Fewer and fewer columns that addressed hard science, and more and more fluffy social commentary pieces that initially sounded like they had a basis in scientific methodology. But in fact, they were shallow opinion pieces. I dropped the magazine more than a decade ago.
The author used this terminology as well. So please explain, what on earth has wokism to do with being ‘left’? Historically being ‘left’ was an economic term, for someone who believed in putting the power in the hands of workers as opposed to the ownership class. I.e. for the working class to have a meaningful say in the decisions that affect their lives.
Wokism is entirely orthogonal to that. To me wokism is an extreme expression of liberalism, defined loosely as the belief in social equality and egalitarianism.
I consider myself solidly left econo-politically, and couldn’t be more against wokism. And to be frank, it really bugs me when people associate this wokish nonsense with leftism. Sometimes i think its a deliberate attempt to smear the econo-political left, but i think mostly its because in the US the terms liberal and left are often used interchangeably, but in fact they are very very different.
I fully agree with Michael's essay. I have been a subscriber to SciAm for 50 years. In the last year I have written to the Sci Am editor to complain about the loss of hard science and the switch to social issues. I told them that if I wanted progressive opinion writings I would listen to MNBC or CNN. I will write again and finally cancel my subscription.