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

161–170 of 1001 posts

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

#161

Post by wk_end »

nasmorn wrote: post #139
wk_end wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any serious libertarian would say it (like most things) is absolutely none of the government's concern, at least with regards to consenting adults. There's probably a range of views when it comes to kids, though. Conversely, they wouldn't be interested in having the government policing the treatment of trans people between private parties, so they'd oppose things like legislation that protects them (or anyone) from d…

[flagged]

I don't really identify as a libertarian myself, but I'm friends with several people who do and sympathetic enough to the idea that I find your accusation of paedophilia pretty distasteful.

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

#162

Post by Nevermark »

psychoslave wrote: post #123
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…

We also maybe have to deal with the common misconception that a fact proceeds somehow from an absolute objective perspective. But as far as humans are concerned, there are only human points of views grounded in human cognition and human interests. Some human points of views might try to encompass more than the direct individual own experience might otherwise limit to, sure, but that is still human endeavor. Fact and…

> there are only human points of views grounded in human cognition and human interests.

“Only”? No.

The entire point of having a scientific approach, an ever longer list of ways to weed out mistakes and misperceptions, is that raw human cognition can be improved upon.

Repeatable results, independently reproduced results, peer review, control elements, effect isolation, … the list is actually very long.

Not every one of the methods we have collected applies to every step in knowledge, but every step we take can be validated by as many of them as apply.

And new ways of falsifying false conclusions continue to accumulate.

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

#163

Post by relaxing »

hnburnsy wrote: post #107
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…

Not true, this is not labeled anywhere I can see as opinion, but does include an editors note to a suicide helpline, and a correction... https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-are-puberty-...

Correctly so, as it is fact and not opinion.

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

#164

Post by leereeves »

abirch wrote: post #157
hnburnsy wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not true, this is not labeled anywhere I can see as opinion, but does include an editors note to a suicide helpline, and a correction... https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-are-puberty-...

What isn’t factual in this article? Is it political because it discusses puberty blockers and transgender adolescents?

I think GP agrees it is factual. It is also called out in the OP ("contained countless errors and misinterpretations").

So it's a counterexample to the claim "Every piece called out here is clearly labeled 'opinion'"

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

#166

Post by CoastalCoder »

watwut wrote: post #97
mitthrowaway2 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does libertarianism take a position on transgender issues? (This seems to be one focus area of the article.) I can see the author has a strong view but I don't know how libertarianism informs it.

Libertarianism theoretically could go either way. Theoretically, do what you want with your bodies. However, libertarianias as they exist tend to be socially conservative - somehow they end up agreeing with GOP position on social issues. In this case, convervatives hate trans people, so libertarians too.

> exist tend to be socially conservative - somehow they end up agreeing with GOP position on social issues. In this case, convervatives hate trans people, so libertarians too

Maybe I'm in the minority, but I think you're conflating a few groups that I see as distinct:

Republicans vs. conservatives, and

(Holding various views about the best public policies regarding transgender issues) vs. (hating transgender persons)

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

#168

Post by Nevermark »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #94
gopher_space wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Most importantly, [the article] falsely claimed that there is solid evidence youth gender medicine ameliorates adolescent suicidality, when we absolutely do not know that to any degree of certainty. There's solid evidence youth gender medicine ameliorates suicidality. Cherry picking from a single study is dishonest.

And unscientific. To be clear - the accusation isn't SciAm was politicised, but that it was politicised in an ideologically unacceptable way. I doubt we'd hear a squeak of complaint if a new editor started promoting crackpot opinion pieces about how all research should be funded by markets instead of governments (because governments shouldn't exist), or that libertarianism is the highest form of rationality. I'll tak…

> I doubt we'd hear a squeak […]

Perhaps, especially in a dialogue specifically about scientific, reasoning and factual quality, we should avoid arguments based on counterfactual conjectures. A type of argument so weak it facilitates any viewpoint.

If you have even weak evidence, better to reference that.

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

#169

Post by forgingahead »

sofixa wrote: post #165
rayiner wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

[flagged]

Did you vote for or do you support the "opposite team"? Because if your standard is "easy to accuse of 'ism' based on association", you might be in for a rude shock.

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

#170

Post by xiixin »

crote wrote: post #146
mitthrowaway2 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't find where the author writes "I'm something of a medical expert". But for myself, I'm not up to date on the research. Does this article misrepresent the current state of scientific understanding?

Yes, it absolutely does. The Cass Review mentioned was composed by a group of authors who are well-known to be opposed to trans healthcare, its methodology and conclusions are heavily criticized by subject experts (basically, "there is no evidence if you ignore all the evidence"), and even Cass herself has stated after publication that it is flawed. It does not represent the current scientific understanding of trans…

[flagged]
Post reply on HN