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

61–70 of 1001 posts

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

#61

Post by karaterobot »

defrost wrote: post #36
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, o…

Are you saying the linked is meant to demonize science? The impression I got was that he was doing the exact opposite: saying that SciAm's editorial direction was harming the public perception of science, which could have far-reaching effects. I don't see that as an anti-science stance.

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

#62

Post by leereeves »

IvyMike wrote: post #39
anonymousiam wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Surely you understand the difference between "Some X believe Y" and "Y is a form of X". Examples of the former pattern do not prove the latter.

Even if we correct the logic here, and change the conclusion to something like "All people who dismiss evolution are white supremacists", that would still be disproven by counterexamples, like the many non-white people who don't believe in evolution.

"Acceptance of evolution was lower [than in the US] in ... Singapore (59%), India (56%), Brazil (54%), and Malaysia (43%)"

https://ncse.ngo/acceptance-evolution-twenty-countries

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

#63

Post by bashmelek »

itishappy wrote: post #20
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.

Any examples? I'm in the same boat as you, and while I agree with the premise, I don't recall anything as egregious as the examples from the article: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/denial-of-evoluti... https://archive.is/H8hJw https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-the-term-jedi... https://archive.is/oMzz7

From my own impression back then, it was less political but more subtly ideological. Truth be told, I have my own ideology as well. Some things that I remember were an article that used a trolley problem of throwing someone in the way to save five as the “obvious rational” choice; and how the covers would often try to link entanglement or dark matter to consciousness. It was numerous little things like that.

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

#64

Post by gopher_space »

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…

Biological evolution was butting heads with the dying concept of social evolution at the time, and that conflict provides illuminating subtext to the trial and book.

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

#65

Post by jgalt212 »

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…

> Every piece called out here is clearly labeled "opinion"

True if one stopped reading half-way through.

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

#66

Post by gopher_space »

karaterobot wrote: post #61
defrost wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, o…

Are you saying the linked is meant to demonize science? The impression I got was that he was doing the exact opposite: saying that SciAm's editorial direction was harming the public perception of science, which could have far-reaching effects. I don't see that as an anti-science stance.

The author's little trans tirade is a great example, and you can start with his "I'm something of a medical expert" line. Pure ideology.

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

#67

Post by rayiner »

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.

It was well established before COVID that missing in-school days has a major adverse effect on learning. Keeping kids out of school had exactly the predicted effect—reading and math scores fell significantly: https://www.gse.harvard.edu/ideas/news/24/01/despite-progres....

We also knew early on that COVID posed little risk to kids themselves. So it was entirely rational for parents, especially of young children, to value keeping those kids in school over the negligible health risks (to the kids) of COVID exposure.

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

#68

Post by IvyMike »

leereeves wrote: post #62
IvyMike wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Surely you understand the difference between "Some X believe Y" and "Y is a form of X". Examples of the former pattern do not prove the latter. Even if we correct the logic here, and change the conclusion to something like "All people who dismiss evolution are white supremacists", that would still be disproven by counterexamples, like the many non-white people who don't believe in evolution. "Acceptance of evolution…

I just gave a connection white supremacy and evolution denial, not trying to prove any absolutes. Everything you are saying seemed kinda obvious and thus I didn't mention it.

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

#70

Post by leereeves »

IvyMike wrote: post #68
leereeves wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surely you understand the difference between "Some X believe Y" and "Y is a form of X". Examples of the former pattern do not prove the latter. Even if we correct the logic here, and change the conclusion to something like "All people who dismiss evolution are white supremacists", that would still be disproven by counterexamples, like the many non-white people who don't believe in evolution. "Acceptance of evolution…

I just gave a connection white supremacy and evolution denial, not trying to prove any absolutes. Everything you are saying seemed kinda obvious and thus I didn't mention it.

I apologize if I misunderstood. I thought your comment was related to the statement being discussed in this chain. ("Denial of Evolution Is a Form of White Supremacy")
Post reply on HN