Hacker News Reader

Comment by cs702 | Hacker News Reader

The OP is upset about the following opinion column published on Scientific American, titled "The Complicated Legacy of E. O. Wilson -- We must reckon with his and other scientists’ racist ideas if we want an equitable future:"

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-complicated-l...

That opinion column is essentially evidence-free. It's main point is that it is dangerous and therefore "wrong" to think, as E. O. Wilson did, that differences among human beings can be explained in part by genetic inheritance and other biological mechanisms, regardless of evidence.

Keep in mind: Most biologists think, as E. O. Wilson clearly did, that differences among human beings can also be explained in part by family dynamics, societal contexts, economic incentives, institutional structures, and other cultural mechanisms.

I wouldn't have expected to see this on Scientific American.

View on HN

As a reader of the magazine for the past 35 years or so, Scientific American, the print publication, has devolved into what Popular Science was about 20 years ago. Sensationalist headlines, writing geared towards a much lower reading comprehension level and the introduction of politics and opinion in various articles.

A sad state of affairs for a once great publication, unfortunately.

However, the mantle has been taken up by online publications such as Quanta, Aeon, Edge and Nautilus, as well as various science authors on Medium and Substack.

When I was about 13 or so, my father brought home a foot-tall stack of Scientific American issues. He was a logger, but knew I was interested in science. This would have been mid-80s.

I read each of those, cover-to-cover, so many times. Barely understanding anything the first time; slowly increasing my comprehension over the months and years. Writing programs in BASIC on my C64 to recreate fractals, or simulate evolutionary processes. It really affected my life profoundly.

I say all that to just emphasize how heartbreaking it is to see what a trash magazine SA is now. In print since the middle of the 19th century, and ruined just in the last 10-15 years. It's a true loss.

SciAm has been going down hill. I was about to restart my subscription years ago and decided to look through some free issue or some such. There was another “woke” opinion column or article.

I think readers with kneejerk reactions to the tune of "theyve gone downhill / woke / bs" are maybe missing the point?

To pull from OPs url, evolution is true. This could suggest that true is not on one side of the "classical science is a blameless objective virgin" and "classical science is an evil villain" and is instead a third position that integrates the awareness of biological and social processes we are currently afforded and keeps pressing on...

" No but " vs " yes and "

If anything it's nostalgic. The old magazines were great since as far as I know there was little in the way of popular science writing that wasn't sensationalised headlines and bad writing. They did a good job of explaining hard science in a relatable way so that you could go any find out more if you wanted to. For whatever reason this article about coffee is still freely available: http://poplab.stanford.edu/pdfs/Illy-ComplexityCoffee-sciam0...

Not a hard read, accurate, references at the bottom for more reading. Even some interesting graphs!

The original article in the OP is here https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-complicated-l...

Seriously, what's up with accusing someone of racism and then not pointing to any specific evidence and lumping Gregor Mendel, a friar whose seminal work was on peas, into the mix? What?

Excellent point! I think id like to reiterate my "yes and" stance- your critique of what is lacking doesnt dismiss , it acknowledges the claims but asks for more of a proof. I think thats good rigor.

This is all well and good, but how does one deal with the reality of Brandolini's law? At what point are we allowed to say "this is a bad faith effort, and I reserve my right to dismiss it on those grounds -- to hell with this nonsense". If we never stand up and say that, it seems to me we are risking the cultural foundations of society for the sake of what? Rhetorical purity? As if nothing else was at stake?!

Risking the cultural foundation? To admit that people in the past acted with racial bias? Really?

To me that is literally cultural fragility. To fail to depart from the purity of the past myth you cling to suggests you lack the resilience to embrace the totality of what actually was.

Not saying you dont have a point- not saying we toss it all or slander everyone as evil- im saying we reckon with the complexity - the grey space between 0 and 1 if we want to actually realize the founding fathers very noble ideals.

I dont think this article made a very good attempt at it , and i think the previous comments pointing out what was lacking in relation to other "good" articles was the sort of "yes and" im referring to.

Though since you have no interest in rhetorical purity i should probably take your advice and dismiss the comment entirely as not being "in good faith" , right coach? ;p

>I think readers with kneejerk reactions to the tune of "theyve gone downhill / woke / bs" are maybe missing the point?

No it doesn't seem that way. Postmodern crowd has been calling evolutionary biologists/psychologists "problematic"/racist/whatever for decades. It's one of the main narratives of the original "culture wars" in the 80's/90's. The "problem" is postmodernists see humans as purely social constructions and any other narratives on human nature as power plays. This is not an integrative "yes and" perspective but the usual dismissal through "deconstruction" you see used by this crowd.

Decomposition and composition are both required in a transform

Reply on news.ycombinator.com