The Editor-in-Chief at Scientific American
-
https://reason.com/2024/11/18/how-scientific-americans-departing-editor-helped-degrade-science/
When Scientific American was bad under Helmuth, it was really bad. For example, did you know that "Denial of Evolution Is a Form of White Supremacy"? Or that the normal distribution—a vital and basic statistical concept—is inherently suspect? No, really: Three days after the legendary biologist and author E.O. Wilson died, SciAm published a surreal hit piece about him in which the author lamented "his dangerous ideas on what factors influence human behavior." That author also explained that "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." But the normal distribution doesn't make any such value judgments, and only someone lacking in basic education about stats—someone who definitely shouldn't be writing about the subject for a top magazine—could make such a claim.
Some of the magazine's Helmuth-era output made the posthumous drive-by against Wilson look Pulitzer-worthy by comparison. Perhaps the most infamous entry in this oeuvre came in September 2021: "Why the Term 'JEDI' Is Problematic for Describing Programs That Promote Justice, Equity, Diversity and Inclusion." That article sternly informed readers that an acronym many of them had likely never heard of in the first place—JEDI, standing for "justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion"—ought to be avoided on social justice grounds. You see, in the Star Wars franchise, the Jedi "are a religious order of intergalactic police-monks, prone to (white) saviorism and toxically masculine approaches to conflict resolution (violent duels with phallic lightsabers, gaslighting by means of "Jedi mind tricks," etc.)"
You probably think I'm trolling or being trolled. There's no way that actual sentence got published in Scientific American, right? No, it's very real.
More at the link describing how SciAm lives in an ideological bubble - taking at face value what some activists say without a hint of scrutiny.
-
That author also explained that "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."
This sort of long-standing attitude on the left is what made it so hilarious when in unison, that side got so excited to call the right "weird". For whatever reason, that strategy went away after a couple weeks, maybe in a fit of self-awareness of how directly opposed it was to their claimed principles. But I've heard it spoken of fondly to this day. Some on the left still miss being able to say it, and they think the election would have gone better if they had stuck to it.
