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.
wgpsy471@nmt.edu (Bill Grother) (03/06/91)
In article <17200@sdcc6.ucsd.edu> jshaw@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (James and Colleen) writes: > >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? > Yes and no. SA has gained a reputation for scientific excellence over a wide range (even though they have printed some schlock in the past). For the most part, SA has tried to maintain scientific credibility; creationism (says the skeptic) hardly applies. When I first learned of it, early in my scientific training, I was appalled that such a badly constructed set of premises could be so popular...and while it has a basis in religion, it has become known as scientific creationism, as more so-called scientists have jumped on the bandwagon. But despite its shaky reputation in the scientific community, I hardly see where that justifies firing someone, especially if this view does not conflict with his work. F. Mims has proven to have a good grasp of many things and there was not much fault to found in his work. I think SA has done him a terrible wrong. >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. > Canceling your subscription would probably not have the desired effect. What you must do is get a group of concerned people together, and take on some of the other ideas you mentioned...if enough people speak, then someone may be forced to listen. -- ############################################################################### wgpsy471@titan.nmt.edu | It is one thing to offer a woman the Moon wrgsnsr@titan.nmt.edu | and the stars...it is quite another to The Man from S.O.C.O.R.R.O. | offer her your heart...
pauls@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 Albrecht
rl@socrates.ucsf.edu (Robert Langridge) (03/07/91)
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... ... Was he fired? It was my understanding that he wasn't hired - which is a little different. Bob Langridge Phone: +1 415 476-2630, -1540, -5128 Computer Graphics Laboratory FAX: +1 415 476-0688 University of California E-Mail: rl@cgl.ucsf.edu San Francisco CA 94143-0446
schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher) (03/07/91)
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... Some of the ads they run don't enhance their scientific reputation, either. Neither do some of their "Science and the Citizen" articles. Is SA a scientific journal, or is it supposed to make money for Springer-Verlag? Their recent behavior is almost (not quite) enough to get me to drop them and join the AAAS for "Science" instead of reading it at the library.
pcjg7045@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 ) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
u1365281@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au (03/08/91)
In article <1991Mar7.013827.19891@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, pcjg7045@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Pramod C. John) writes: > 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 think this sells the ACLU a bit short. They often take up causes they don't believe in, not to defend the causes, but to defend a justifiable freedom of speech. > 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 Science is being made into a religion, for which it is ill-suited. Scientists need to resist this. This requires accepting and rejecting views on the basis of evidence, not ideology or politics. As long as someone accepts a view that patently violates the standards of scientific evidence, one has to question their sceintific credibility. If this is questioned, and their work in the area they publish is sound, their irrational quirks have no bearing on their work. I am not disgusted, but I am disappointed that the editors of Scientific American would (apparently, assuming the reasons given for the firing were correct as reported) succumb to commercail rather than scientific standards ("there are no politics; it's just the bottom line"). Incidentally, if a witch doctor should demonstrate a sound and repeatable technology, based on some theory we find implausible, but which fits her technology well, in the sense of providing predictions and guiding new applications, we would do well to look more closely at her theories to find out what produces this apparent "remarkable coincidence". Creationism has not had the same success, so we can safely ignore it. If Mimms were using the credibility of Scientific American to support his creationism, the case against him would be a good deal stronger. I haven't seen any evidence he has done this. Just being cited by creationists is insufficient; Gould has been awarded this honour. John Collier U1365281@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu
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
Neil.Davis@f6.n2001.z1.onebdos.UUCP (Neil Davis) (03/10/91)
> 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... > ... > Was he fired? It was my understanding that he wasn't hired - which > is a little different. I know nothing of the truth of the above,however, Forrest MIMS,III is alive,and active. He is the editor of a new magazine,SCIENCE PROBE ! The Amateur Scientist's Journal yesterday. As of the second edition,he also appears to be the author of about ten percent of its' content. I'll refrain from reviewing the magazine....and in case anyone should imply anything from that statement,don't....every man to his own. --- FD 1.99c * Origin: The Southdog Voyage, Vancouver Island, British Columbia (1:2001/6) -- Neil Davis - via IMEx node 89:681/1 Neil.Davis@f6.n2001.z1.onebdos.UUCP