Michael Shermer: How Scientific American Got Woke
The science writer and journalist talks identity politics, wokeness, trans athletes, and why his goal is to find out what is true rather than to "be right."
"I think the second-wave feminists I've talked to are very worried about the kind of woke, gender-identity movement because it's reducing women to just body parts," says Michael Shermer. "A guy can say, 'Well, if I just get breast implants [and] then I can have a vaginal plastic made out of a piece of my skin, I'm in. I'm a woman, right?' Well, no, because women are not just tits and ass. There's more to it than that, a lot more."
For decades, Shermer has been one of the most popular—and provocative—explicators of science to popular audiences, having authored bestselling books such as Why People Believe Weird Things, Why Darwin Matters, The Moral Arc, and The Mind of the Market. He founded Skeptic magazine in 1992 and hosts a video podcast with leading activists and intellectuals. For nearly 20 years, he authored a widely read column for Scientific American in which he debunked beliefs in UFOs and other paranormal phenomena, explained the rise of the "new atheism," and showed how evolution systematically informs human behavior. Shermer's work is deeply and explicitly rooted in libertarian and Enlightenment ideas about individual responsibility, free market economics, rationality, and the search for something approaching objective truth.
In 2019, Scientific American cut him loose, a move he ascribes to the publication's suffocating embrace of the sort of identity politics and wokeness that he says dominates academic and intellectual circles and, increasingly, the culture at large.
Last fall, Shermer, who holds a Ph.D. in the history of science and teaches a class called Skepticism 101 at Chapman University, started a weekly Substack where he posts podcasts and the columns he would have written for Scientific American. The 67-year-old former competitive cyclist talked with Reason during FreedomFest, an annual gathering in Las Vegas, about what he sees as the fundamental clash between wokeness and scientific inquiry, how hard it is to overcome the cognitive biases we all have, why he thinks trans athletes should be banned from most women's sports, why we have so much trouble acknowledging moral and technological progress, and why he now identifies as a classical liberal rather than a libertarian.
Shermer has sat down with Reason a number of times since 2008, speaking about the future of science, how evolution formed the modern economy, and his "Google theory of peace." He's also spoken to us about the history of modern skepticism, why everyone wants to believe in Heaven, and why self-help gurus aren't the key to happiness.
Photo Credits: Willie J. Allen Jr./ZUMApress/Newscom; Loxton, via Wikimedia Commons; Gage Skidmore, CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons; Fronteiras do Pensamento, CC BY-SA 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons; Fronteiras do Pensamento, CC BY-SA 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons; Fronteiras do Pensamento, CC BY-SA 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons; Sports Press Photo/Daniela Porcelli / SPP/Sipa USA/Newscom; Jose Perez / SplashNews/Newscom; Tristanb at English Wikipedia, CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons; Kenneth Martin/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom; Glasshouse Images Glasshouse Images/Newscom; RICHARD B. LEVINE/Newscom.
Music Credits: "Just Make It Fun," by Custommelody via Artlist.
Interview by Nick Gillespie. Video by Regan Taylor and Adam Czarnecki. Camera by Noor Greene.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Yesss, Reason, come to the Dark Side...
Lol. In 10 more years they may come to the conclusion of how bad the left has actually been. Right now they still believe the changes are well intended and can be reformed instead of the destructive mess it is.
I am creating eighty North American nation greenbacks per-hr. to finish some web services from home. I actually have not ever thought adore it would even realisable but my friend mate got $27k solely in four weeks simply doing this best (lao-04) assignment and conjointly she convinced Maine to avail. Look further details going this web-page.
.
---------->>> https://googlechoice.netlify.app
Shermer is moving or has moved from libertarian to the Left.
I recently ran across 10- or 11-year-old copy of SA that stated that Matthew Shepard in Wyoming was murdered because he was gay, even though that claim is unproven and debatable. They were just pushing their political agenda. It was disappointing.
Reading the little blurb, I think this fits within what we see from Reason most of the time. I'd comment more, but I don't watch videos and they don't provide a transcript.
"I think the second-wave feminists I've talked to are very worried about the kind of woke, gender-identity movement because it's reducing women to just body parts," says Michael Shermer.
It's not reducing them to body parts.
It's reducing them to a set of stereotypical performative behaviors. It's disgusting.
Excellent point.
Yeah, that was a bizarre take on the whole thing. They have tied themselves into such rhetorical knots that their logic supporting it has become completely inscrutible.
The trans movement claims that a man can be a woman in every sense of the word if he believes he is. Given that even men who have dicks can still be "woman" according to transgenderism, I don't see how transgenderism "reduces women to their body parts". In fact, it does just the opposite and totally discounts their body parts. That is a really stupid statement on this guy's part.
It's self contradicting. If transgenderism only required a statement of belief, why would any of them opt for surgery? Clearly, there's two distinct lines of thought here: Many transexuals clearly believe that superficial body parts are not only important, but the end-all-be-all of gender. Many other people, primarily those trying to enter women's restrooms with penises, believe (or at least profess) that belief is the only component of gender.
Maybe there's some kind of overlap with some people believing that body parts matter a little and belief matters a little. It doesn't matter though because the entire thing is garbage, like arguing over what the aliens in Roswell really look like.
Look at the Department of Education Regs that mpercy quotes below. They clearly state that how much or how little a person has altered their body has no relationship to whether they are actually trans. You can never so much as take a hormone and be considered "trans" under the definitions.
I just worked part-time from my apartment for 5 weeks, but I made $30,030. I lost my former business and was soon worn out. Thank goodness, I found this employment online and I was able to start working from home right away. (res-37) This top career is achievable by everyone, and it will improve their online revenue by:.
.
After reading this article:>>> https://workofferweb24.pages.dev/
You are looking for consistency where there is none.
It's reducing them to a set of stereotypical performative behaviors.
Yeah, that's something that has struck me about the whole "57 genders" thing. The idea seems to be, if you look at it absent all the euphemism, that women having masculine qualities makes her somehow something other than just a woman and a man having feminine qualities makes him something other than just a man. But, that strikes me as sort of a retrograde view of masculinity and femininity. By this view, you would almost have to conclude, if you were consistent and not just looking for social approval, that gays were somehow less than "real men" and lesbians were somehow less than "real women". But, it goes even beyond that. If you listen to what these people are saying, a guy who likes romantic comedies or a woman who's a tomboy is somehow categorically different from a pure man or woman, respectively. It's sort of a third grader's idea of manhood and womanhood.
I have been saying this exact thing for a very long time. Despite it claiming to made gender fluid, transgenderism enforces an incredibly rigid and exaggerated ideal of gender. You can't be just an effeminate guy or a masculine girl. Nope, if you don't meet the exaggerated and strict standard of whatever sex you are born, you must be the other sex.
If a man wears lipstick and a dress, he's a woman.
If a woman doesn't wear makeup, high heels and has short hair, she's not a woman.
And now you understand why a large portion of gays are seriously put off by transexuals. The T in LGBT was put there by academics and politicians trying to rally people for a political cause, not by the dykes and fags themselves.
Transexual men claiming that lesbians who refused to sleep with them were bigots did not go over well with said lesbians. The TERFs were the first ones to figure out what a threat transgenderism is.
They've also tried bitching at straight guys for refusing to have sex with them. Whatever you "identify" as, you're never entitled to sex from an unwilling participant. That's the creepiest thing about them.
-jcr
"Is it homophobic if I don't want to suck a transwoman's dick?"
They are like incels, except with the blessing of the media and entertainment elites.
Also, last I checked, one need not even get the breast implants or any other surgery. Don't need to even start dressing differently. Simply the declaration is sufficient.
E.g., Title IX guidance letter from Obama (which I think Biden reinstated)..."The Departments interpret Title IX to require that when a student or the student’s parent or guardian,
as appropriate, notifies the school administration that the student will assert a gender identity that
differs from previous representations or records, the school will begin treating the student consistent
with the student’s gender identity. Under Title IX, there is no medical diagnosis or treatment
requirement that students must meet as a prerequisite to being treated consistent with their gender
identity.
Also "Transitioning is the time period during which a person begins to live according to their gender identity, rather than the gender they were thought to be at birth. While not all transgender people transition, a great many do at some point in their lives. Gender transition looks different for every person. Possible steps in a gender transition may or may not include changing your clothing, appearance, name, or the pronoun people use to refer to you (like “she,” “he,” or “they”). Some people are able to change their identification documents, like their driver’s license or passport, to reflect their gender. And some people undergo hormone therapy or other medical procedures to change their physical characteristics and make their body better reflect the gender they know themselves to be. ... No specific set of steps is necessary to “complete” a transition—it’s a matter of what is right for each person. All transgender people are entitled to the same dignity and respect, regardless of which legal or medical steps they have taken.
All transgender people are entitled to the same dignity and respect, regardless of which legal or medical steps they have taken.
In other words, you can still shower with women even if you have a dick and have made no efforts to make yourself into a woman other than saying you are one.
This is real scientific stuff here. It is not just an excuse to let perverts shower and change with women or anything.
begins to live according to their gender identity, rather than the gender they were thought to be at birth.
And "live according to"... I want a precise fucking definition of that. Surgically precise.
It means the person thinks and claims to be that thing. That is it.
it's a QED world.
So if a "transgender woman" claims to be "a woman," what exactly is it that they are claiming to be?
When you need to rock a piss, you use the urinal in the ladies room.
How about that?
SciAm went woke in the early/mid 90's...this is nothing new.
Scientific American went woke about twenty years before 2019. One of the things that threw me at that was a blurb article that China had the greatest percentage of women in their legislature, the UK and the USA, the least. One thing that could be gleaned from the information presented was the more direct control the voters had over who represented in the legislature, the least likely a woman would occupy the seat. The more an authority (a political party or the ruling oligarchy) controlled who say, the more likely a woman would hold the seat. That was not discussed by the article.
At that time it changed its editorial policy from discussing global warming to advocating, meaning they would stop publishing articles that were sceptical and actively push support.
That to me seemed a betrayal of what the magazine had stood for as presenting current scientific research to the layman in a neutral fashion.
Went PC long before. I cancelled my subscription in the late 1970s. They had a pattern of articles: the first was some politically fashionable lightweight nonsense, last was archaeology or similar, then Mathematical Games.
The final straw for me was when that first PC article was all about how communist capital cities are better than capitalist cities, and his two shining examples were the two Koreas. Had pictures from each. Seoul was colorful, bright, crowded shoppers. Pyongyang was gray, empty, boring. He thought those alone were proof. Another reason why capitalist cities were bad was that they were so big and crowded that they concentrated all that sewage in one place far from farms. You'd think it was a Sokol hoax or something. But it was only a slight exaggeration compared to previous ones, and the last I read.
I attended college back in the late 70's, early 80's, and you could tell they were already starting to go left back then; It was a running joke that the first two to three articles in an issue would have some political implications, always leftwing.
Later it became all of them.
"To find out what is true"
He is a liar. Well, one who lies to himself... so deluded is probably a more fair interpretation.
He is driven entirely by politics, not science. This has been the case since he wrecked Scientific American a quarter century ago. It took me nearly a decade to finally give up and cancel my subscription.
The irony for me is that he was squarely in the center of my march toward a libertarian political identity. And he dragged the Skeptic column and then SA into leftist partisan politics....
And then the woke apparently came for him. So we both lost the magazine we love to leftist politics... just a couple of decades apart.
The crocodile is always hungry.
Yep. He’s an atheist that worships Gaia, scientism and government, just like all the other “skeptics.”
You obviously don't know what the word "Skeptic" means.
Also, I subscribed to skeptic for a few years, until it became a leftist political screed instead of an interesting source of scientific debunking of quackery.
Is this the same magazine which used to have articles by Joe Nichols (?) debunking stupid UFO and haunted house claims? I had a subscription for a while, but it all seemed so pointless, debunking such petty fraud. I remember one where the debunker dug through a palm reader's trash, a lot like that. Thousands of such fakes, but who cares, they are mostly entertainment for people who know it's fake and just want a good laugh with friends.
Yeah, they took on everything. Homeopathic medicine, ghosts, psychics, UFOs, "alternative medicine"....
Back in the late 80s early 90s there was still a sheen of credibility to paranormal claims. It was interesting and entertaining to get the real answers.
But "credible claims" outside of CAM are pretty hard to come by these days, so skepticism is less interesting and has less to do.
I still subscribe to both Skeptic and Skeptical Inquirer. There's a degree of repetition and duplication, but overall I find both interesting. And there are always new things emerging. If I ever sit down and write my sceptical article about the (non-existent) uncanny valley, perhaps I will make a contribution...
I am sure, judging by some of the letters Shermer published, that Skeptic lost some readers when Shermer was persuaded that anthropogenic climate change was real. Evidently they missed the point of what scepticism actually meant.
"I think the second-wave feminists I've talked to are very worried about the kind of woke, gender-identity movement because it's reducing women to just body parts,"
I think this actually mis-states the problem. It's more than this.
Queer ideology is denying that you can even be a woman. These feminists have fought for years to get affirmative action to help women succeed. And now the men they fought against are declaring themselves women to get scholarships and entry. They fought hard to create women's sports- and now men are declaring themselves women to take over those sports. They fought hard to say that a woman can climb trees, wear pants and do other behaviors "reserved" for men. And now these Queer ideologues insist that makes them men, not women participating alongside men. They have fought to get protection against a society that often made them second class citizens, and now they find men "identifying" as women coming into their bathrooms and raping actual women in prisons.
Whether you agree or disagree with (say) affirmative action or carve outs for women's sports, the fact remains that transgendered activists- largely biological men- are undoing the progress they achieved over the past 40 years. I would quibble with a lot of the affirmative action stuff, but there is one thing I would agree with: denying that there is a difference between women seems to be a cynical attempt of mentally disturbed men to get a patriarchal control put back over women.
All of that is true. The other ironic thing is that it also cancels out gays. Gays fought for decades for it to be acceptable for someone to be attracted to the same sex. Now "queer ideology" is claiming that there is no such thing as the sexes beyond state of mind. So, if a lesbian isn't sexually attracted to a man with a dick who thinks he is a woman, she is transphobic and wrong. The fact that she for whatever reason doesn't find men and dicks attractive or sex with a man something she wants is completely dismissed.
How can one claim to be a member of the sisterhood when one did not grow up a sister? Even discounting periods and stuff, one did not develop and mature as a female. This isn't a club one can just join.
A friend of mine is trans, and I'm always yelling at her, "Stop walking like a dude!" But she will never get out of that because she was literally raised as a dude.
Sounds like that Dave Chapell bit about Caitlyn Jenner being named woman of the year.
"Ain't that some shit... ain't been a woman a whole year, never menstruated one time, and she is the woman of the year. "
But she will never get out of that because she was literally raised as a dude.
And still is.
Or the old "Men are apparently better than women at everything, including being a woman"
A friend of mine is trans, and I'm always yelling at her, "Stop walking like a dude!" But she will never get out of that because she was literally raised as a dude.
It is more than that. He can go back to being a dude if he wants to. If you are born a certain way, you don't get that choice. Back in the 60s, a white journalist dyed his skin black and traveled through the Jim Crow South trying to find out what it was like to be a black man. He wrote a book called "Black Like Me". It is a good book but it is ultimately limited because no matter what happened to the guy, he always knew he could reveal himself to be a white person if he really needed or wanted to. Black people caught up in all that didn't have that option. Same thing here. Someone who chooses to act like a fem but can go back to being a man at any time, is not a woman in the full sense of the word I don't care how well he is at fooling people about his sex.
John H Griffin = Black Like Me author
The author of "Black Like Me", and his family, were ostracised from their home town when the story came out.
"A friend of mine is trans, and I'm always yelling at her, "Stop walking like a dude!" But she will never get out of that because she was literally raised as a dude."
Brandy shows just how fucking bizarre this is. What does "Walking like a dude" even mean? Has he ever been do a ranch? Ever been to a farm in rural mexico? People around the world have different ways to walk. But for some reason "Gender identity" and "behavior" are all the same thing to Brandy.
To queer advocates and Brandy: "If you identify as a female, you sure as well better display the behaviors we sexists ascribe as feminine! Walk like a woman, damnit!"
To a feminist: "I'm a fucking woman. I can walk around however the fuck I want."
To queer advocates and Brandy: "If you identify as a female, you sure as well better display the behaviors we sexists ascribe as feminine! Walk like a woman, damnit!"
If you are a woman and don't look and act like some version of Marilynn Monroe, then you are really a man. You are not a tomboy or even a butch woman. You are a freak whose body doesn't match their mind.
Transgenderism is very accepting like that.
"A friend of mine is trans, and I'm always yelling at her, "Stop walking like a dude!" But she will never get out of that because she was literally raised as a dude."
The hips don't lie. It is a fundamental physical difference between men and women. Due to the shape of women's pelvic bones and men's pelvic bones, they walk differently. It's also one way forensic anthropologists tell them apart.
Not for much longer: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/activists-question-labeling-human-remains-male-female
"...the fundamental clash between wokeness and scientific inquiry, how hard it is to overcome the cognitive biases we all have, why he thinks trans athletes should be banned from most women's sports, why we have so much trouble acknowledging moral and technological progress, and why he now identifies as a classical liberal rather than a libertarian."
Galileo feels your pain. It is hard to fight a religion with mere facts. Not impossible, just hard.
Galileo's trouble with the Church was drawing unwarranted philosophical/theological conclusions from the facts. His larger problem was going up against the scientific consensus of the time with an incomplete theory that could not model the observable world very well in the specifics, that is, planetary motion.
Much of the churches attacks against Galileo and Copernicus were in fact scientific. They were largely based on accepted scientific beliefs at the time. Parallax was used to discount Copernicus as an example. The church was acting much more like the current scientific gatekeepers screaming consensus currently. Yes they were theological as well, but they did root discussions on actual science. This is not a defense of them, but more a realization that most theologians are not anti science and were not even back then. They just acted as gate keepers and use theology as the permanent I win button in the debates.
^^THIS^^ times a thousand
The Church was the scientific gatekeeper of the time. And the entire scientific community had its careers invested in the Ptolemaic system being right.
Yes, the most Galileo did was punch holes in some of the base assumptions of the Ptolemaic Model of the universe. He did not provide a workable alternative. The idea that Galileo was a victim of unenlightened religion against the purity of Science is a secularist fairy tale.
Fine, you spend 12 years under house arrest for practicing what is the nub of the jist of Science, Mr. Rat!
Yup. When you assume that the orbits of planets are circular rather than elliptical, heliocentrism didn't work mathematically, which was Pope Julius argument.
People forget that:
1. Copernicus dedicated his work on heliocentrism to Pope Paul III. The Catholics didn't have a problem with it then.
2. Galileo and Pope Julius were once good friends, and would have continued being friends if Galileo hadn't publicly mocked him as an idiot during the heliocentrism debates. The real reason he ended up in trouble.
3. The Protestant churches milked the story at the time as proof that the Catholics were unscientific. A lot of their embellishments are today's narrative.
2. Galileo and Pope Julius were once good friends, and would have continued being friends if Galileo hadn't publicly mocked him as an idiot during the heliocentrism debates. The real reason he ended up in trouble.
Even this is a bit of a combative interpretation. It was Urban (Julius was dead) who encouraged Galileo to publish after the first trial and Galileo didn't specifically mock Urban. Modernizing a bit, Galileo effectively named the advocate of Copernicanism 'Karen' and, by the time word got to the Pope, everyone had interpreted 'Karen' as 'A Karen' or 'A bunch of Karens' whether Galileo intended Karen that way or not. Even then, under sentence of torture, and there was no shortage of torture being done by The Inquisition, he spent the next 12 yrs. under house arrest.
If the Church was objectively right and proved it's case, they wouldn't have had to hold Galileo under house arrest for even one minute, let alone 12 years.
Fuck Off, All Ya'll Grand Inquisitors and Apologetic Suck-Ups!
Or maybe, just maybe, that Galileo simply didn't have much of a case at the time and got too ahead of himself? Has that thought ever occurred to you?
Read the replies once again. You failed to come up with an actual refutation.
Galileo didn't need any Goddamn help from the prospect of going on a rack.
And I'm not condoning The Inquisition. I was pretty clear that they tortured a bunch of people. One of my favorite quotes is a quote about Frank Miller, being an old crank, rebuking a questioner prefacing a question [about pulling Batman out of the 50s] with "As we've come to know more sociologically, psychologically..." by saying "Excuse me, you're mistaking whatever the current trend in thought is for knowing more. The people who took part in the Spanish Inquisition thought they were doing the right thing. Sometimes people are wrong for millennia."
My point wasn't that he wasn't mistreated by The Church or Italians/Romans. My point was that, as a heretical scientist he was treated better than your average Jew or other apostate. If that offends your moral sensibilities as an atheist, maybe you should take it up with
whatever higher power set history that wayyourself.Oh, so now we're getting into dick-measuring contests over who got it worse than whom? Tyranny over the mind of Man is evil whether it's done with racks and thumbscrews or lobotomies and comfy chairs.
You sure do use a lot of words to say things that are not worth saying.
Science is evidence-based, shows it's homework, and can be practiced by all who can do so. Theology is faith-based, comes from hearsay and hallucination, and can only be practiced by those who claim a "revelation." And as Jefferson wisely observed: " It is error alone that needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself."
Scientific American's drift into ideological fundamentalism is beginning to give aid and comfort to the Creationists.
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2022/08/are-scientific-americam-and-answers-in.html
Years ago, I accused these climate change catastrophists of using the same logic that young earth creationists use. I pretty much got the weight of that usenet group against me for asserting such (yeah, it was that long ago). Funny to see how they align now.
Jesus. Sounds like Frito Lay needs to spend a little less on keeping roaches out of the mixing vats and a little more on advertising.
The beauty of the cricket puffs recipe is that it makes cockroaches in fast food factories a feature rather than a bug
The funny thing is, it's the last ingredient of the 'Puff', meaning it rather is like they mixed a couple hundred pounds of corn, lentil, fava, and rice flour and then just tossed in a handful of dried crickets.
Or they were there all along, but now they can claim them as a feature (and a bug).
You would think Big Grain would be suing to not let people call anything "flour" that isn't made out of some sort of grain.
Others have noted it above, but SciAm has been on a long drift to ever greater heights of wokeism. But in 1994 when John Rennie took over as editor-in-chief, it went from being a science magazine to being a policy magazine that used science as a prop to support its policy positions. Ironically for his complain, I remember Shermer as one of the evidences for the drift away from science into policy, as Shermer frequently used his column to castigate his political opponents. I guess the steamroller he was on finally decided to throw him under its barrel.
I've not really read it much since Rennie’s tenure, but I assume the subsequent editors have continued to see it as an organ of the Democrat party position du jour. As such, it has become a religious, rather than scientific, publication, albeit one that packages itself as scientific.
I have a complete volume of SciAm from 1895. It was a wonderful publication back then. Sadly, it's not what it once was.
"...As such, it has become a religious, rather than scientific, publication, albeit one that packages itself as scientific..."
See, also "Climate Change", and "Covid Pandemic".
If anyone is so inclined to a very different take on things, I've heard good things about this book: "The Genesis of Gender"
It is Catholic, but it's from a convert who is a Ph.D in Gender Studies and had a bit of a shift in reasoning in her late 20s after grappling with a lot of stuff. So, an interesting background. The book sounds interesting though, and isn't about her conversion or anything. It's on my to-read list.
>>women are not just tits and ass
those are given. smarts and funny are key
how hard it is to overcome the cognitive biases we all have
The idea that one can substantially alter their cognition and, even if they can, overcome biases rather than just supplanting them seems exceedingly unscientific. Not to say that it can't be done, just that the distinction between my conscious bias against New York Style pizza, my unconscious bias against ketchup on hot dogs, and the observable superiority of deep dish pizza isn't exactly some observable, measurable, repeatable phenomenon.
crunchy peanut butter is good on hot dogs.
It is remarkably good. Especially with some coarsely ground mustard. And all beef hot dogs.
exactly how grandpops used to serve them.
Pink Sauce or GTFO!
you don't seem the tiktok type
Or dragonfruit. Or sweet sauces... actually, come to think of it, a dog with some Alabama White Sauce sounds freakin' good.
Chicago? I sure hope we have a chance of getting rid of Pritzker.
#FJBP
"...In 2019, Scientific American cut him loose, a move he ascribes to the publication's suffocating embrace of the sort of identity politics and wokeness that he says dominates academic and intellectual circles and, increasingly, the culture at large. .."
A bit late to the party there; the stench had been building for at least a decade prior to that.
I subscribed to SciAm for probably 20 years before cancelling my subscription around the time Schermer was pushed out. Starting around 2017 the political slant went from a reasonable center-left (e.g. serious discussion of climate change) to far left and increasingly diversity-oriented. That's not what I science magazine should be about, even if you agree with it.
A glance at the Scientific American headlines is usually good for a laugh these days.
Ditto The Economist; Bagehot is rotating rapidly enough to power the printing presses.
Shermer has been trying to debunk reality his whole career. Best example might be his debunking of UFOs, for which the Department of Defense now has a formalized office based on the multidisciplinary confirmation. There is a difference between debunking and just being wrong. Shermer is usually on the "wrong" side of that equation.
"...Best example might be his debunking of UFOs, for which the Department of Defense now has a formalized office based on the multidisciplinary confirmation..."
Studying bullshit does not change it from being bullshit.
Depends. I imagine there is unidentified / misidentified stuff in the air. Not aliens, not extra dimensional, not Magic. Probably mostly boring junk like vapor reflections or what not. Probably should still be studied.
I could be wrong, I’ve been so before.
I like Shermer but he's obviously far off the mark with gun control.
His fundamental mistake is that he's approaching the law-abiding gun owners and demanding that they make concessions when their doing so will not actually stop the repeat violent offenders (usually gang members) from committing gun violence.
If he is to be a true scientist, he should be looking for ways that ACTUALLY REDUCE GUN VIOLENCE, and disarming the peaceable citizenry will not accomplish that because they weren't the ones committing the gun violence in the first place.
It's funny how he thinks "better background checks" will do something when the ban on murder and the ban on assault have been around for far longer than any gun controls, and criminals still violate those bans.
At least he does get "enforce the existing laws" right, but it's gotta be the most basic laws against murder and violent assault where there is a clearly-identifiable victim and an attacker. These higher-level gun controls are an attempt to extend into victimless crime ("greater good") territory.
The argument for gun control boils down to claiming that because a gang member in Chicago shot someone a law abiding person in Montana has to give up his gun. No one who defends that should be called rational.
Or, more cogently, that because a gang member in Chicago shot someone the victim's law abiding neighbor should give up their gun.
No. He should be looking to reduce violence, period.
By focusing on the weapon, rather than the person committing a violent crime, you’re guaranteed to reach a faulty conclusion.
The funny thing is he thinks it's something the libertarian movement recently got on a tear about, when the LP was literally bragging in the 70's and 80's that it was more pro-gun than the NRA and more free speech than the ACLU. (Back then that latter was still a little difficult.)
I don't think he ever really got libertarianism in the first place.
Shermer (and many others including many pro-RKBA people) could do with a reading of The Gun Control Debate: You Decide published by the Secular Humanist publisher Prometheus Books.
I will add also that Shermer is profoundly mistaken about Preppers and Survivalists.
Yes, some were Y2K/Mayan Calender 2012 doomsayers and Second Coming of Jesus Apocalyptics, but a brief look at headlines will rationally demonstrate that the big hand is always on "Nut" and the little hand is always on "Cuttin'" somewhere in the world.
Emergency Preparedness for natural and man-made disasters is just an insurance policy where you are your own actuary and adjuster.
...in which he debunked beliefs in UFOs and other paranormal phenomena...
UFOs are not paranormal phenomena. Most of them are misidentified flying objects or light sources. Others may be terrestrial or alien craft of unknown origin.
The term is Paradolia, the act of finding patterns in incohate matter, such a when a clump of clouds looks like Krusty The Clown.
What Shermer fails to see was that his ideology played a significant role in the rise of pseudoscientific wokism.
"Once people stop believing in God, the problem is not that they will believe in nothing; rather, the problem is that they will believe anything." - C. S. Lewis.
And CLew saying it makes it so?
Usually that line is falsely attributed to G.K. Chesterton. It's refreshing to see it falsely attributed to C.S. Lewis for a change.
Whoever said it was thoroughly mistaken. Not believing in a God does not necessitate any other affirmative belief.
Atheists may be Conservative, Liberal, Libertarian, Socialist, or Green. They may be Pro-Science or Pro-Pseudoscience, even Pro-Non-God Supernatural entities like spirits or Supernatural realms like Nirvana. They may be sane or delusional, good or evil, any condition of birth. The only necessary thing that unites all Atheists is lack of belief in a God or Gods.
So if I *don't* believe in some alleged being whose existence cannot even be proven and therefore whose characteristics are unknowable, then somehow I will not apply that skepticism to anything else and will just believe whatever somebody tells me?? Seeing through humans' creation of "god" is a good first step toward seeing through the human creation of government.
Fo' shizzle, Chilli Fizzle! 😉
Though one of the Atheist Forums I'm on has more than a fair share of "Social Democrat" Wokeists, and although one Atheist mailing list I was on in the Nineties had precursors of SJW/Atheism + as members, I am pleased to see that many big-name contemporary Atheists like Paul Kurtz, Anthony Flew, and Tibor Machan held mostly if not totally Libertarian views.
American Atheists has had tables at CPAC and former head David Silverman has a group called Atheists for Liberty. Whether organized Atheism is a good thing or not, it does show that Atheists do have a variety of political viewpoints and approaches to presenting their ideas.
Mike Shermer consigned himself forever to the bottom of my intellectual barrel when he published his book with Arthur Hertzberg "Denying History" proving that anyone who questions the dominant Holocaust narrative is an idiot, a Nazi, or worse.
I'm worse.
Fuck Off, Worse!
I haven’t picked up a Scientific American in probably 15 years-they went woke before woke was even a thing. Same can be said for much of academic science in general.
I felt SciAm took a downward step when my old friend Ian Stewart no longer provided the recreational maths column!
"reducing women to just body parts"
This is exactly what the anti-trans people are doing. They say pretty much exactly those words. You are born with a vagina, you're a woman, end of story.
I understand if you're confused about whether trans people think of themselves *as* women or as presenting as women. But there's way too much lizard-brain disgust reaction informing what is, in fact, a semantic debate, because nobody is actually confused about the difference between sex and gender (although conservatives just found out about it).
We've been through the oppression olympics before. I think most feminists understand that it's not a zero-sum game.
Faggots like you have historically been more vicious towards trannies than anyone else. So fuck your fake concern trolling. Go drink Drano.
Not only have conservatives newly discovered biology, they know the ins-and-outs of the LGBT experience too.
they know the ins-and-outs of the LGBT experience too.
Go on... 🙂
What tge trans activists are pushing is differences in sex never matter. "Transwomen are women" is the epitome of this attitude. If the trans activists recognized differences in sex, they would not be attacking people like JK Rowling with such viciousness.
Trans activists on the internet are almost as insane as Trump supporters.
JK Rowling needs to get off the internet just like them. She could have been immortal for her books instead of ephemeral and despised for this nonsense.
The internet is not real life. I feel like I'm going to be shouting this into space from the exploded remains of earth.
I liked Shermer until he got TDS. I don’t mind liberals when they make sense and convince me with factual statements, but he went a bit too far left in the past 2 years.
Agree 100%
A revolutionary complaining that the revolution finally came for him, and not even having the decency to reflect on his own part in going after others prior to that.