Scientific American

A left biased popular "Science" magazine that occasionally lets a good article or two past their woke staff.

A left biased popular "Science" magazine that occasionally lets a good article or two past their woke staff. They do have stuff worth reading and I read it. But if there's a bias, it'll always be left.

ℹ️ Info

~ Aristotle Sabouni
Created: 2018-04-05

Other that dozens of examples of them being a leftist political magazine that occasional touches on Scientific-lite article, they're not horrible. They are pro Critical Race Theory, pro AGW theory (well past the science), pro-Bestiality ^[1] They love woke, and find reasons to add race to every topic. And if real scientists point out errors, omissions, they almost never offer corrections. They're good Democrats, which means they put politics above science, every time.

Examples[edit | edit source]

Here's some examples of their bias: Scientific American • [7 items]

Damar Hamlin injury was racist
2022 You can't make it up. It's not satire. According to Scientific American an athletes heart attack was the product of the NFL’s routine violence towards black men. Part of a coordinated smear campaign on Football (running simultaneously in many leftist rags at the same time) about how we should ban the sport as too violent.

Metal Reserves
Scientific American published a chart quoting Harrison Brown, a scientist at the National Academy of Sciences, that looked at metal reserves and estimated the humanity would totally run out of copper shortly after 2000. Lead, zinc, tin, gold, and silver would be gone before 1990. We have far more today than we had in 1970.

Racist Roots of Fighting Obesity
2020 Article that shows that Scientific American isn't interested in science as much as clickbait. The Science of racist obesity is written by a Sociology progressor and a "body liberation" expert. It's about as bad as you'd imagine.

Sciam attacks Donald Trump
FakeScience magazine SciAm attacks Donald Trump during his campaign because OrangeMan is bad! Their unhinged rant is about politics: e.g. not a Scientific Journal's forté. They offer nothing of value in the editorial attack, don't support their positions, other than to make their position known. They are mad that an America First guy is coming to power.

Sciam endorses Joe Biden
FakeScience magazine SciAm endorses a political candidate because OrangeMan is bad! They blame Trump for COVID response, EPA, and so on -- all since thoroughly debunked. Like all lefty publications, they create fiction, then just have to react to their fiction because it's just too important. Then fail to offer corrections/apologies when that fiction is later debunked.

Red or Blue Mortality Rates
SciAm pretends that there's a significant Red/Blue Mortality gap, and it's about policies. (1) The gap is small (2) they ignore cultural, population density, race, diet, exercise, and all other things to jump to policy. That's not Science (statistics), or looking at the data, that's political advocacy.

Sexual Harassment
2013 attacked a Woman as "whore" for asking to be compensated, which degraded into various sexual harassment complaints (Bora Zivkovic was accused by Monica Byrne). Zivkovic apologized, multiple other Women came forward with similar experiences, and Zivkovic was forced to resign after it was exposed.

The Shameful Decline Of Scientific American

Basically this is outraged that they attacked Edward O. Wilson (and Karl Pearson, Francis Galton, Charles Darwin, Gregor Mendel and others) for racism. Thirty-one biologists, including some very notable ones, wrote a letter to Scientific American pushing back on this article, SciAm ignored. ^[2]

Leftist see everything as racism. And Wilson and Darwin were either advocates of eugenics or at least always used by eugenicists for their political causes. So this article may not be off the mark on anything other than it doesn't belong in a Scientific Journal, but a CRT training manual. And plus, this has the tone of "Presentism" a historical fallacy of judging past folks by todays standards instead of their own (and understanding context).

Bias Both MBFC (Media Bias Fact Check) and AllSides (both less than perfect and having their own leftist slant) have admitted the bias of Leftist Scientific American ^[3]

Edible Foam Advertorial In a show of bad judgement, they ran an article that was advertorial designed to promote a book, “The Art and Science of Cooking", as a science article. ^[4]

Psilocybin found to ease end-of-life anxiety in small study of patients with fatal cancer. The editors were completely oblivious to the fatal flaws in the study protocol and merely reported what they were told by the researcher. Likely because it fit the left bias that halucinagens are a good thing. ^[5]

Woo Suk Hwang September 15, 2005 Scientific American dropped Woo Suk Hwang from their Scientific American 50 awards. Dr. Hwang had faked evidence to claim he had cloned human embryonic stem cells. ^[6]

2018 Philsopher Justin Weinberg slammed Unscientific American for how much they've gotten wrong in the area of philosophy and slammed quite a few different examples of their failure. ^[7]

Michael Shermer Wrote 214 essays for the magazine, then wrote scathing editorials (Scientific American Goes Woke, What is Woke, Anyway?) on how stupidly Woke they SciAm had become. ^[8]

Jerry Coyne wrote a scathing articles, "Scientific American dedicates itself to politics, not science; refuses to publish rebuttals of their false or misleading claims." and "More bias in Scientific American, this time in a “news” article" that details his complaints with the leftist rag.^[9] It goes on to detail a lot of woke bullshit that they've written implying that:

Math is racist

That Darwin and Mednel are racist

Jedi in Star Wars are toxically masculine white saviors

that SETI (Search for extraterrestrial intelligence) is implicitly racist and colonialist