jshaw@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (James and Colleen) (03/05/91)
About four months ago I heard a short piece on NPR about Scientific American firing Forrest Mimms. I hadn't heard any more about it until (fortunately) my new issue of Harper's (March 1991) came. It published a telephone conversation with Mimms and the editor of SA. Mimms was fired because he didn't believe in evolution and was a creationist. For those of you who do not read SA, Mimms' articles have nothing to do with biology and the issue of evolution or creationism never come up. He was fired strickly for his religious beliefs (he is a christian) not for any articles that he wrote. He was in fact complemented by the editor for his work. Mimms wrote the Ametuer Scientist articles in SA. He has also written a number of electronics books, as well as writing many columns for electronics magazines including Modern Electronics. For the record, I am an atheist and I don't agree with Forrest Mimms' religious views, but I am also a scientist and agree with Scientific American even less. I have a number of questions for everyone out there: A. Is everyone as offended by this very unscientific, and fundamentally marketing, decision of SA? Is there anyone out there who can defend SA's decision? B. What can I do about it. I could cancel my subscription to SA, but I do happen to like the other articles in it. I could write them a letter, but I doubt they will publish it on their letters page. (They have made no mention of their dropping of Mimms in their magazine). I could also write to companies advertising in their magazine. I'm not sure how effective this is. Any suggestions on this will help. C. Are there other occurances of censorship like this from major and/or scientific publications? (recent or landmark, please) D. Does anyone know the current status of Mimms. I had heard the ACLU was thinking of taking up the case, but I don't know that he wanted to bother. I hope he sues them; he deserves recompensation and SA deserves the bad publicity (Sorry, off my soapbox now...). I would urge anyone following this thread to find the current issue of Harper's at their library (or if you must sneak a peek at the bookstore). It is a short 1-2 page article. It starts on page 28. Thank you, James Shaw P.s. I was not sure which groups to post to. If there are any more that you feel should be included, please add them to your reply.
sje@bubba.ma30.bull.com (Steven J. Edwards) (03/06/91)
The termination of Forrest Mimms by Scientific American was
totally unjustified. As long as a creationist slant does not show up
in _The Amateur Scientist_, Piel (SA's Publisher) had no good reason
whatsoever to terminate Mimms. Religious belief should not be a
litmus test for mainstream science of the type seen in the column.
I, like most scientists, do not believe in creationist
"theory". Furthermore, I am not a Christian and so have little
alliance with people like Mimms with respect to religion. However,
because I am quite sure of my beliefs, I find it highly objectionable
that Scientific American finds it necessary to act as a religious
policeman. Do they think that their readership is so easily swayed
that an occasional reference to something outside mainstream science
is going to topple a reader's world model?
I read Mimms' Amateur Scientist columns and found nothing
objectionable or religious in nature. Other than the occasional
anthropological article, the only references to religion in Scientific
American are the use of Christmas symbols and figures in their holiday
subscription advertising. Someone should ask Piel why a belief in
Genesis is so awful while the use of Santa Claus is perfectly
justified.
I did write to Scientific American back in mid 1990 with my
disapproval of the frequency shift of the math and science columns
from monthly to semi-monthly. I pointed out that I hade been a
faithful reader since 1969 and had been a big fan of both C. L. Stong
and Jearl Walker.
No reply was ever received. I let my subscription lapse. I
just don't think that Scientific American cares much about it
traditional readership any longer; it seems only concerned about
selling a demographic model of intelligent, high-earning readers to
its non-science advertisers.
Being a libertarian, I can understand that Scientific American
should be able to hire and fire as they choose. Also by being a
libertarian, I just can't see ever sending them any more money until
they can demonstrate a greater respect for authors' rights.
I recommend that current or former readers of Scientific
American consider joining the American Association for the Advancemnet
of Science. I believe that their number can be found in the
Washington DC phone book. Although somewhat more expensive than other
science publications (~US$80/year), it offers a weekly (not monthly)
journal (Science) and various professional activites. They have also
reported on Mimms' situation.
== Steven J. Edwards Bull HN Information Systems Inc. ==
== (508) 294-3484 300 Concord Road MS 820A ==
== sje@bubba.ma30.bull.com Billerica, MA 01821 USA ==
"That Government which Governs the Least, Governs Best." -- Thomas Jeffersonpauls@tellabs.com (Paul Silver) (03/06/91)
Scientific American fired Forrest Mimms because having someone who believed in creationism as a member of their staff would cause the magazine to lose its reputation. I can see where this would be true. Would you read a book on, say, quantum mechanics, which contained contributions from the witch doctor of some Amazonian Indian tribe? Probably not. -- -------------------------------------------------------------------- / Paul Silver / Dischord Records / / pauls@tellabs.com / putting the D.C. in harDCore / -------------------------------------------------------------------- All opinions expressed are strictly my own, unless I stole them.
tom@dvnspc1.Dev.Unisys.COM (Tom Albrecht) (03/06/91)
In article <5472@tellab5.tellabs.com> pauls@tellabs.com (Paul Silver) writes:
<Scientific American fired Forrest Mimms because having someone who
<believed in creationism as a member of their staff would cause the
<magazine to lose its reputation. I can see where this would be true.
<Would you read a book on, say, quantum mechanics, which contained
<contributions from the witch doctor of some Amazonian Indian tribe?
<Probably not.
If the witch doctor had an advanced degree from an accredited university
and had demonstrated the ability to conduct independent, scholarly
research, why not?
--
Tom Albrechtpcjg7045@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Pramod C. John) (03/07/91)
tom@dvnspc1.Dev.Unisys.COM (Tom Albrecht) writes: >In article <5472@tellab5.tellabs.com> pauls@tellabs.com (Paul Silver) writes: ><Scientific American fired Forrest Mimms because having someone who ><believed in creationism as a member of their staff would cause the ><magazine to lose its reputation. I can see where this would be true. ><Would you read a book on, say, quantum mechanics, which contained ><contributions from the witch doctor of some Amazonian Indian tribe? ><Probably not. >If the witch doctor had an advanced degree from an accredited university >and had demonstrated the ability to conduct independent, scholarly >research, why not? >-- >Tom Albrecht I firmly believe that the Scientific American had absolutely no right to fire the guy over the reason claimed. Since when has the right of people in the scientific community to believe what they want to believe in been revoked? Even within the realm of Physics, there is quite a bit of dissension over many even fundamental viewpoints. To require that everyone agree with whomever is in control is nothing but mind (polititical :)) control. This is about as ludicrous as saying George Bush shouldn't be president of the U.S. because he's against abortion and Roe v. Wade allows it. (I can think of a lot of other reasons though) Maybe this should be taken to the courts as a case of "Intellectual Discrimination." Mimms should be judged on the basis of his work, not on his beliefs. Who cares if he believes in the tooth fairy, as long as he does a satisfactory job!! Although I think this is a perfect case for the ACLU, I doubt they would do anything either as "Creationism" is involved. I would like to find about the credentials of this guys boss and his beliefs, and idiosyncracies. What in the world is the Scientific Community coming to? Thoroughly disgusted in Champaign, Pramod John -- Pramod John, Dept. of ECE at UIUC email: Pramod@uiuc.edu "I think it would be a good idea." - Gandhi, when asked what he thought of Western Civilization.
jwm@sun4.uucp (James W. Meritt) (03/07/91)
In article <1991Mar7.013827.19891@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> pcjg7045@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Pramod C. John) writes: }tom@dvnspc1.Dev.Unisys.COM (Tom Albrecht) writes: } }>In article <5472@tellab5.tellabs.com> pauls@tellabs.com (Paul Silver) writes: }><Scientific American fired Forrest Mimms because having someone who }><believed in creationism as a member of their staff would cause the }><magazine to lose its reputation. I can see where this would be true. }><Would you read a book on, say, quantum mechanics, which contained }><contributions from the witch doctor of some Amazonian Indian tribe? }><Probably not. } }>If the witch doctor had an advanced degree from an accredited university }>and had demonstrated the ability to conduct independent, scholarly }>research, why not? } } I firmly believe that the Scientific American had absolutely no right }to fire the guy over the reason claimed. Since when has the right of people in }the scientific community to believe what they want to believe in been revoked? It hasn't. Since when have magazine writer's beliefs been revoked by magazine public relation's offices? }What in the world is the Scientific Community coming to? When did a popular magazine become part of "the scientific community"? Opinions expressed are solely those of the author, and do not necessarily represent those opinions of this or any other organization. The facts, however, simply are and do not "belong" to anyone. jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu or jwm@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu or meritt%aplvm.BITNET
al@gtx.com (Alan Filipski) (03/08/91)
In article <1991Mar7.013827.19891@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> pcjg7045@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Pramod C. John) writes: >as he does a satisfactory job!! Although I think this is a perfect case for >the ACLU, I doubt they would do anything either as "Creationism" is involved. Why do you think that they would be reluctant to defend a "creationist"? They've defended Nazis, Seventh-day Adventists, Orthodox Jews, Quakers, Peyote Smokers, people with all kinds of non-mainstream religious and quasi-religious beliefs. Why do you think they would shy away from creationism? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ( Alan Filipski, GTX Corp, 8836 N. 23rd Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona 85021, USA ) ( {decvax,hplabs,uunet!amdahl,nsc}!sun!sunburn!gtx!al (602)870-1696 ) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
frank@grep.co.uk (Frank Wales) (03/08/91)
In article <5472@tellab5.tellabs.com> pauls@tellabs.com (Paul Silver) writes: >Scientific American fired Forrest Mimms because having someone who >believed in creationism as a member of their staff would cause the >magazine to lose its reputation. Quite the contrary, IMHO. >I can see where this would be true. >Would you read a book on, say, quantum mechanics, which contained >contributions from the witch doctor of some Amazonian Indian tribe? >Probably not. Speak for yourself; that way lies closed-mindedness. Ideas shouldn't be judged according to their creators; many of the greatest contributors to science were also religious, but that doesn't mean that we disregard their work; the science is not the scientist. We should be sceptical, but not pre-judgemental. Any publication with the word "scientific" in its name should appreciate and uphold this ideal. -- Frank Wales, Grep Limited, [frank@grep.co.uk<->uunet!grep!frank] Kirkfields Business Centre, Kirk Lane, LEEDS, UK, LS19 7LX. (+44) 532 500303
lamb@brahms.udel.edu (Richard E Lamb) (03/09/91)
If I remember right, Dr. Einstein was a very religious man. Does that make relativity suspect? I guess it does to some.... All this babble... The (proposed) final word: Religion makes a lousy science, and Science makes a lousy religion. RL