Several readers called my attention to the new entry on Scott Aaronson's website, which deals with the recent Scientific American op-ed about E. O. Wilson's supposed "racism". The original piece can be found here. Did you know that he was a racist? I was hoping that the editor-in-chief would take a second look at the op-ed, but leave it up. I don't think the magazine wants to go in the Social Justice direction. The author was black, which would make the situation worse.
Scott wrote a brief introduction to a guest post by Ashutosh Jogalekar, who was fired for a few posts, but was also a writer for Scientific American. The Washington Post called attention to the mess. Jogalekar was fired here in the year 2014).
Click on the picture to read Scott and Jogalekar's takes. Am.
I am not going to bash the magazine or the author of the hit piece, but will let these two have their say with a few quotes.
From Scott.
I wrote on my Facebook that I would no longer agree to write for or be interviewed by them, unless and until there is a complete change of editorial. I encourage all other scientists to do the same, since it is obvious that the entity that now calls itself Scientific American is related to the legendary home of Martin Gardner. Scientific American abdicated in part due to high-quality online venues.
Ashutosh Jogalekar was inspired to post an essay after reading my Facebook post. Ashutosh was fired from Scientific American seven years ago for writing a column in which he advocated acknowledging Richard Feynman's flaws, including his arrogance and casual sexism, but also understanding those flaws within the context of his whole life. That was really it. Read the piece. Ashutosh gave me permission to share his moving essay about E. O. Wilson.
Scientists and lay people should refuse to write for Scientific American. The mission of the magazine has changed from telling the public about science to socially engineering American society to conform to the editors' "Progressive Leftist" standards.
Wilson is a kind man without a trace of racism, that's what Jogalekar sees him as. There are a few quotes.
Ed Wilson was one of the most eloquent and determined advocates for both human and natural preservation. His zeal to communicate the wonders of science to both his fellow biologists and the general public was hidden under Southern charm. His book, "Naturalist", is the most literary statement of the scientific life I have read, and it was one of a half dozen books that completely transported me when I read it in college. He sent out clarion calls for saving the planet, for enabling dialogue between the natural and the social sciences, for understanding each other better, in book after book of wide-ranging intellectual treats threading through a stunning diversity of disciplines. In the face of unprecedented challenges to our fragile environment and continued barriers to interdisciplinary communication, this is work that likely will make him go down in history as one of the most important human beings who ever lived. Few scientists from any field in the 20th century can hold a candle to Ed Wilson, even though the National Medal of Science, the Crafoord Prize, and not just one but two Pulitzer Prizes can be used to measure achievement. Dick should know since he just came out with a first-rate biography of Wilson weeks before his passing, and my friend Richard Rhodes said that there wasn't a racist bone in Wilson's body.
There is one thing that theSci. has. The good that the man did was not mentioned. That omission was unforgivable. You would have to be a complete fool to deny that the world was better for Wilson because of his work on evolutionary psychology.
More from Jogalekar.
The author of the op-ed did not say a word about Wilson's decades-long, heroic effort to preserve the planet and our relationship with it, it was clear that she had little familiarity with Wilson's words. Wilson spent decades advocating for saving our planet and averting a catastrophe of extinction, climate change and divisiveness, but his non-existent immorality is what is missed in her article. This is a pattern that is consistently found among those who advocate for social justice or equity, as they seem to spend all their time talking about fictional, imagined immorality while missing the real, flesh-and-bone morality that is often the basis of someone's entire life.
>
The simple fact is that McLemore didn't care about anything. She didn't care because she had a political agenda and the facts didn't matter to her. Wilson was an obscure white male scientist who was venerated, and that was the reason for a supposed takedown. The editor of Scientific American praised this ignorant, ideology-driven rant.
He encourages us to do the same as Scott did.
To my friends and colleagues who still write for the magazine and whose opinions I still respect, I really wish to ask: Why? Is writing for a magazine that has sacrificed facts and the liberal voice of real science at the altar of political ideology still worth it? What would it take to say no more?
I will not work with them, but they have never asked me, so I have nothing to lose.
I received a link to the Ed Wilson interview in the Harvard Gazette. Wilson is saying this in there.
The chapter on how it could be applied to people was the first thing I did after finishing the big book. I tried to be cautious. I should have been more politically careful, by saying this does not imply racism, it does not imply sexism, and I am not trying to defend capitalism, so don't drop the world on top of me. I might have gotten off better if I added that in the book.
>
. I was upset that I was called a racist. I was accused of trying to revive a dangerous philosophy. There was nothing in the book to suggest that. The words had to be changed.
>
. If I had to do it over again, I would write a solid piece in the final chapter and say that it really doesn't tell us anything about the best political system or correct ideology.
