Empirically biased

Let’s review what “science” is, class. My old-fashioned desk dictionary gives the primary meaning as “the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.” (Phenomenon defined as a natural occurrence, not a Taylor Swift concert tour.) Observation, identification, etc., has been Scientific American’s beat since the first issue rolled off the presses in 1845. SciAm is the nation’s top mainstream scientific journal, boasting such past contributors as Albert Einstein and J. Robert Oppenheimer. The magazine has published articles confronting established theories with new evidence and debunking popular speculations.

More and more, though, SciAm seems to be adjusting the dictionary definition of science to “the obfuscation of incorrect views, the identification and description of progressive ones, and the subjugation of phenomena to policy.”

Take a recent editorial in the magazine titled “Children Deserve Uniform Standards in Homeschooling” (May 14, 2024). This one captured the attention of James R. Mason, president of Home School Legal Defense Association, who asked “Why Is Scientific American Going After Homeschooling?” in National Review. The answer: for the usual reasons, mostly related to fear of what kids in the heartland might be learning.

The SciAm editors allow a limited case for homeschooling if children have special needs their school can’t meet, or if they face physical danger in a tough neighborhood. “But many parents,” they warn, “are attracted to homeschooling because they want to have more say in what their child learns and what they do not.” (Imagine that!)

Scientific American can state its editors’ opinions like everyone else, but one would expect those opinions to be somewhat based on science. For example, objective science would appear to support the view that human life begins in the womb, yet all three abortion-related editorials SciAm published this June ignored biological facts in favor of reproductive rights.

A look at the contents of the website that same month shows a decidedly political slant even in reporting. June politics were superheated by Supreme Court decisions, and SciAm gave SCOTUS a mixed report card: high marks on dismissing the Idaho v. U.S. case, thus allowing “emergency” abortions to take place in Idaho. Also on Murthy v. Missouri, leaving the federal government free to threaten (or “talk to,” as the article heading puts it) social media platforms that allow web posts the government deems misinformation.

But the magazine frowned on the Chevron case, which limits the regulatory power of federal agencies. “A Supreme Court Ruling May Make It Harder for Government Agencies To Use Good Science” reads the tsk-tsking headline.

At City Journal, James B. Meigs presents science columnist Michael Shermer as Exhibit A for how Scientific American has been drifting for decades. Shermer began writing his SciAm “Skeptic” column in 2001 but ran afoul of editors in 2018 with a piece titled “The Fallacy of Excluded Deceptions.” In it, he argued that excluding contrary evidence can lead to unjustified conclusions. One example was the common assumption that abused children become abusive parents. While such a view isn’t justified by the evidence, Shermer’s editor struck that paragraph because it might suggest child abuse isn’t a problem. Only a month later, the editor struck an entire column about how discrimination against minorities and gays has diminished. Why? “They are committed to the idea that there is no cumulative progress,” Shermer says. In other words, despite stats to the contrary, we’re still racist to the core.

The final break: a column about how intersectionality, or the sorting of individuals into hierarchies of oppression, undermined the goal of equal opportunity for all. Scientific American canceled not only the column, but Shermer’s contract. He now publishes his skeptical views on Substack.

Meigs reports a notable swing toward social-justice topics since Laura Helmuth took over editorship of Scientific American in spring 2020. Objective science reporting still constitutes the bulk of the magazine. But articles like “The Racist Roots of Fighting Obesity” and “Modern Mathematics Confronts Its White, Patriarchal Past” suggest gauzy theorizing more than rigorous observation, identifi­cation, description, and experimental investigation.

Science is a human enterprise, subject to all the human weaknesses of pride, defensiveness, and empire-building. But every human enterprise must guard its parameters. The more political science becomes, the less scientific.