There is a reasonably good article over at Scientific American by Michael Shermer, The Liberals' War On Science. It's pretty basic by the standards of what conservatives have been pointing out for years, but I am pleased at where it is placed, introducing the idea to liberals in a method they might hear.
Vaccinations aren't mentioned, organic food only indirectly, and he doesn't notice that some basic arithmetic in economics gets overlooked. I think Shermer additionally misunderstands the moral reasoning of being against stem-cell research - not horribly, but not quite right, either. Finally, he takes the conventional wisdom on global warming without a qualifier and overvalues the effect of belief in Young Earth Creationism. With a list like that, how could I possibly be recommending it, eh?
Well. He dares to mention evolutionary psychology, hammering home Pinker's points again. He doesn't shy away from possible consequences of disallowing GM foods. He notes that the controversial beliefs are not either-or among the parties.
And it's in Scientific American, thank you, a publication that has come down a bit over the decades in an effort to remain viable, but still has some weight.
HT: hbd*chick
When I was an Undergraduate at RPI in the 1970's, one of my professors (ex MIT radiation lab guy) said the Scientific American was a very good place to get an overview on a topic. Now, SciAm is just another tony looking magazine (Atlantic with more science). Topics are less hard science and more Psychology today. It is still good to see this small correction in a liberal mag. Liberals do like to be seen as cynics, which they always do with Religion. As Greenism gets more and more cultlike, the urban Leftist needs to distance himself along safe pathways
ReplyDeleteIt's sad what's happened to that magazine. It used to be entirely respectable, a model of clear explanations of complicated subjects. We relied on it heavily in my high school biology classes. But it's very encouraging if they even let a little crack open.
ReplyDeleteWait. And See. Will this continue, or is it a one-off?
ReplyDelete