Interesting article about what went wrong at Scientific American

[biddyboo]

https://reason.com/2024/11/18/how-scientific-americans-departing-editor-helped-degrade-science/

The editor of Scientific American has resigned following a post-election rant on Twitter about Trump supporters.

The article linked above looks at what went wrong during her tenure, and it is particularly critical of their shoddy and misleading reporting on gender-affirming care.

Hopefully her departure means a return to proper evidence-based reporting free from ideology. It gives me hope that there has been such pushback and ridicule of what has happened at publications such as SA (and Nature Journal etc). It means the activist influence is waning because people have had enough. It feels like there is a slow return to reality happening.

I don't suppose Margaret Attwood, who used the ridiculous SA article on sex being a spectrum as 'evidence' supporting her total moral surrender, will be reading this article.

Margaret Atwood has been acting quite strangely on Twitter (supposing it is her using her account) and feigning ignorance about her previous stance.

Just had a look (MA on twitter) and I'm totally confused.

Yeah, that's a bit odd, or maybe she's trying to muddy the record:

https://x.com/MargaretAtwood/status/1858135684407603603

And why is she reposting Maya's tweet from three years ago?

She's doing a Philip Pullman.

What happened with Phillip Pullman?

Reverse ferret central!

Did Pullman do one? I must have missed it.

https://grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/his-dense-materials

It seems like she is confused about Twitter

The article seem to describe the situation well, but it doesn't offer much thought about what the heck went wrong. How did anyone with a scientific background think this kind of output was anything but shit?

Thanks nauticant👍
Will have a read

Nevertheless, I have reached the following conclusion: never expect an author whose characters prize integrity over reputation to embody that principle in real life.

Ah yes.... it's a sad kind of awakening isn't it?

I hope the New Scientist has a change of heart about this barpottery as well, I use to like reading their mag and listening to the podcast, right up until one of the presenters used the term 'birthing person'. I stop listening there and then and haven't been back since.

Oh no, not New Scientist as well. We have a subscription at work, and I normally skim some of the articles and hadn't noticed anything too bad.

Is she really responding to a tweet from 3 years ago? Today? How odd.

My dad does stuff like this. It's because he doesn't really understand how these platforms work. He will see something old and doesn't realize it is old, or he thinks stuff is for him specifically when it isn't.

Nothing so bad as my great uncle though who didn't realize we could all see him on FB commenting on rubber ladies.

Thank you for the link - she's very funny as well as cutting.

It will be interesting to see where the SA goes with this change. Hopefully their meandering into Unscientific America territory will have been temporary.

They're talking about this article on the forum of the "Blocked and Reported" podcast that is cohosted by the article author. I enjoyed this comment that likens ideological capture of institutions to establishment of a new theocracy:

One thing we have learned in the past twenty years is that absolutely all of our supposedly disinterested institutions are just piles of partisan hackery.

The problem here is that this religious stupidity has completely infected every government agency and social institution from the intelligence agencies to the libraries. There are no brakes anymore. Every retarded idea that emanates from the penumbra of some nineteen-year-old rich kid at Barnard becomes the orthodoxy of the nation.

The Long March through the Institutions was really the establishment of a state religion, and we now live in a theocracy of the most silly sort.

Our supreme court justices issue legal rulings on sex despite not knowing the difference between men and women without expert scientific assistance. Our scientists have re-invented the soul, and call it gender.

Vaunted "Science" is no better than Alex Jones.

But I doubt that SciAm will be charged a billion dollars for its scientific frauds and lies.

I unsubbed when they produced this miserable piece of shit article.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2333320-covid-19-vaccines-in-pregnancy-not-linked-to-miscarriage-or-stillbirth/

This formerly 'pregnant person' refused to give the fuckers any more money.

"Aided by a clan of witches who are very, very ancient (over 35) and hail from a dark, secret place (Mumsnet)," love it :) :)
(in case it is not obvious, in the context this is good natured humour).

That made me smile too!

DH subscribed for years and I used to read New Scientist. I felt more and more disappointed by their refusal to report on the science even when science has a lot to contribute to serious controversies like women in sports. I don't know what mixture of cowardice and ideological capture caused their silence on everything to do with sexual difference (and their occasional linguistic nods towards gender) but either way I haven't complained now that DH has dropped the sub.

Me, too.

It made me feel like part of a hidden gang ❤️