Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Scientific American's departing editor and the politicization of science

reason.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 1001 posts

Re: Scientific American's departing editor and the politicization of science

#31

Post by devindotcom »

Every piece called out here is clearly labeled "opinion" - did they even read the normal news and analysis sections? Countless newspapers and outlets and actual scientific journals have opinion/editorial sections that are generally very well firewalled from the factual content. You could collect the worst hot takes from a few years of nearly any site with a dedicated opinion page and pretend that it has gone downhill. But that this the whole point of having a separate opinion section — so opinions have a place to go, and are not slipped into factual reporting. And many opinion pieces are submitted by others or solicited as a way to show a view that the newsroom doesn't or can't espouse.

Whether the EIC of SciAm overstepped with her own editorializing is probably not something we as outsiders can really say, given the complexities of running a newsroom. I would caution people against taking this superficial judgment too seriously.

Re: Scientific American's departing editor and the politicization of science

#32

Post by kbelder »

bashmelek wrote: post #5

To be honest, even 18 years ago, long before this editor in chief, I found Scientific American rather ideological. Maybe it got more obvious over time, but I don’t see its recent tone categorically different.

SciAm was transformative to my life, I think. My father brought home a stack of them, maybe a couple year's worth, for me when I was twelve or so. I read them over and over again during my teens, slowly puzzling understanding out of the articles that were initially so far beyond me. Learned more from that stack of magazines than some years of high school.

But that was in the 80s. For the last couple of decades, Scientific American just makes me sad. Crap I wouldn't bother reading.

Re: Scientific American's departing editor and the politicization of science

#33

Post by cpursley »

lmm wrote: post #18
rayiner wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The second point is critical. Relevant testimony from the former head of the NIH during the pandemic, Francis Collins: https://www.bladenjournal.com/opinion/72679/confession-of-a-... > “If you’re a public-health person and you’re trying to make a decision, you have this very narrow view of what the right decision is.” “So you attach infinite value to stopping the disease and saving a life. You attach zero value to wh…

While I agree with the fundamental point, I find that a kind of ironic choice of examples. I wonder what kind of person attaches so much value to keeping kids in school whether it's good for them or not.

I think most reasonable and quite frankly, honest, people understood now and then, that taking the kids out of school would fuck them up pretty bad.

When the actual science was suggesting we take care of the medically vulnerable and elderly. But hey, there’s an election to win!

Re: Scientific American's departing editor and the politicization of science

#34

Post by wrp »

I loved Scientific American as it was in the 1970s-80s, and was saddened to see what happened to it after around 2000(?), but I can see how having an editor like Helmuth would be a rational choice for the owners. The purpose of a commercial magazine is to generate income, and as Fox/CNN/NYT/Guardian realized, being objectively informative is a sub-optimal approach. I do wonder how we can ever again have something like the old Scientific American.

Re: Scientific American's departing editor and the politicization of science

#35

Post by itishappy »

dekhn wrote: post #28
yks wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The essence of science is to distrust authority and received wisdom. This is not "the essence of science" by any means.

The motto of the Royal Society: "The Royal Society's motto 'Nullius in verba' was adopted in its First Charter in 1662. is taken to mean 'take nobody's word for it'. It is an expression of the determination of Fellows to withstand the domination of authority and to verify all statements by an appeal to facts determined by experiment." It's highly consistent with the statement above and in many ways is consistent with…

... source?

(sorry, couldn't resist)

https://royalsociety.org/about-us/who-we-are/history

Re: Scientific American's departing editor and the politicization of science

#36

Post by defrost »

devindotcom wrote: post #31

Every piece called out here is clearly labeled "opinion" - did they even read the normal news and analysis sections? Countless newspapers and outlets and actual scientific journals have opinion/editorial sections that are generally very well firewalled from the factual content. You could collect the worst hot takes from a few years of nearly any site with a dedicated opinion page and pretend that it has gone downhill…

The linked article itself is an opinion piece.

Reason does interesting stuff, sure, but no mistake it has a bias and that is a right centre libertarian view that loads factual content toward a predetermined conconclusion that individual free thinkers trump all.

As such they take part in a current conservative habit of demonising "Science" to undermine results that bear on, say, environmental health, climate change, on so on that might result in slowing down a libertarian vision of industry.

I still read their copy, I'm a broad ingestor of content, but no one should be blind to their lean either.

Re: Scientific American's departing editor and the politicization of science

#37

Post by rayiner »

SideQuark wrote: post #27
rayiner wrote: post #13

[flagged]

All people, not just white, go nuts about varying “isms.”

Yeah, but they literally believe a supernatural force with power over life and death wants them to do it. I assume Helmuth isn’t in that category.

Re: Scientific American's departing editor and the politicization of science

#38

Post by insane_dreamer »

I clicked on the links of the articles linked to by the author as "egregious" examples of Helmuth's editorial bias, and they're both clearly labeled _OPINION_. (Opinion articles are not scientific articles because they are __opinion__.)

May need to choose some better examples if the author wants to support his point.

Re: Scientific American's departing editor and the politicization of science

#39

Post by IvyMike »

anonymousiam wrote: post #14
favorited wrote: post #2

> For example, did you know that "Denial of Evolution Is a Form of White Supremacy"? Yes, because I read Inherit the Wind in middle school.

Ugh. I'm sorry, but could you please explain yourself? I also read Inherit the Wind in middle school, and my understanding is that it fictionalized the (true) story of the "Scopes/Monkey Trial", which was an ideological conflict between science and religion. It's been over 50 years, and maybe I'm so pure that I disregarded any racial context, but I don't remember any. How does "White Supremacy" come into the story, o…

As a whole?

White supremacists hate the idea that they could have had non-white ancestors. Belief in a white Adam & Eve is much more in line with their world view. Non-whites were created by "the Curse of Ham". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_Ham

Re: Scientific American's departing editor and the politicization of science

#40

Post by elevatedastalt »

yks wrote: post #10
senderista wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Trust the science" is the very antithesis of the scientific spirit. The essence of science is to distrust authority and received wisdom. If you treat scientists as some sort of infallible priesthood then you've missed the whole point of science.

> The essence of science is to distrust authority and received wisdom. This is not "the essence of science" by any means.

The Scientific process does not have any authority except observed natural phenomena.
Post reply on HN