#Ben shapiro quip promo code free#

What happened seven years ago was not just a misunderstanding but clearly one of many first warning signs of a calamitous slide into a decidedly unscientific, irrational and ideology-ridden universe of woke extremism. Now the magazine has done me a great favor by allowing me to wipe the slate of my conscience clean. I still respected some of the writers at the publication, and while I wore my separation as a badge of honor and in retrospect realized its liberating utility in enabling me to greatly expand my topical range, I occasionally still felt bad and wished things had gone differently. When I parted from the magazine I chalked up my departure to an unfortunate misunderstanding more than anything else.

Scott AaronsonĪs some know, I was “fired” from Scientific American in 2014 for three “controversial” posts (among 200 that I had written for the magazine). Wilson with Ashutosh’s very generous permission. (Yes, that was really it! Read the piece!) Below, I’m sharing Ashutosh’s moving essay about E. Ashutosh used to write regularly for Scientific American, until he was fired seven years ago over 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 Feynman’s whole life, including the tragic death of his first wife Arlene. Fortunately, there are high-quality online venues (e.g., Quanta) that partly fill the role that Scientific American abdicated.Īfter reading my Facebook post, my friend Ashutosh Jogalekar was inspired to post an essay of his own. I encourage all other scientists to commit likewise, thereby making it common knowledge that the entity that now calls itself “Scientific American” bears the same relation to the legendary home of Martin Gardner as does a corpse to a living being.

(Think I must be misrepresenting the “critique” of Lander? Read it!)Īnyway, in response to Scientific American‘s libel of Wilson, I wrote on my Facebook that I’ll no longer agree to write for or be interviewed by them (you can read my old stuff free of charge here or here), unless and until there’s a complete change of editorial direction. I suppose it was as “insightful” as SciAm‘s disgraceful attack last year on Eric Lander, President Biden’s ultra-competent science advisor and a leader in the war on COVID, for … being a white male, which appears to have been E. On Twitter, Laura Helmuth, the editor-in-chief now running SciAm into the ground, described her magazine’s calumny against Wilson as “insightful” (the replies, including from Richard Dawkins, are fun to read). There are no intellectually honest people who, not knowing what it is, figure that it must be something racist.

There are intellectually honest people who don’t know what the normal distribution is. The so-called normal distribution of statistics assumes that there are default humans who serve as the standard that the rest of us can be accurately measured against. SciAm‘s Pravda-like attack included the following extraordinary sentence, which I thought worthy of Alan Sokal’s Social Text hoax: A mere three days later, Scientific American-or more precisely, the zombie clickbait rag that now flaunts that name-published a shameful hit-piece, smearing Wilson for his “racist ideas” without, incredibly, so much as a single quote from Wilson, or any other attempt to substantiate its libel (see also this response by Jerry Coyne).

Wilson-the legendary naturalist and conservationist, and man who was universally acknowledged to know more about ants than anyone else in human history-passed away at age 92.

#Ben shapiro quip promo code free#