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

191–200 of 1001 posts

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

#191

Post by thaw24612107 »

error_logic wrote: post #150
thaw24612107 wrote: post #141

[flagged]

It's similar to how if you think heterosexuality or homosexuality are choices due to your own experience, that's not everyone's experience, and you're probably bisexual...congratulations. Even though there are only two sex chromosomes, issues with them can cause people who are physically intersex. Then there's all the complexity of the sense of self. Some people could feel they have the 'wrong' body and be fine with…

Affirming a delusion was never the correct response to treating mental illness. We should stop pretending their delusions are real, if we really want to help them.

It is completely different if it is a physical disorder, but this is not the case in vast majority of cases.

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

#192

Post by [deleted] »

standardUser wrote: post #133

I sympathize with her. There's a big movement in this country that defines itself largely by opposing what its perceived enemies support. When science (or culture) makes a reasonably sound assertion, and it's met with an opposition that wields rhetoric like a weapon with no regard for rationality, it's tempting to fight fire with fire. And when the victims of that opposition are among the most marginalized in society…

[deleted]

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

#193

Post by sofixa »

forgingahead wrote: post #169
sofixa wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[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.

I'm not American nor do I live in the US. The mere fact that there are only two teams, and everything has to be the opposite (oh, you don't support X? you must be from party Z because they hate X, and if they hate it, I love it!) even if it's basic scientific facts is infuriating.

And one of the teams is actively racist and sexist, has shown a blatant disregard for rules, norms laws and ethics, and now has full power over all branches of government. There's no scenario this ends well in the long term, and it's sad to look at from across the pond.

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

#194

Post by [deleted] »

wrp wrote: post #34

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 lik…

[deleted]

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

#195

Post by rbanffy »

heresie-dabord wrote: post #181
standardUser wrote: post #133

I sympathize with her. There's a big movement in this country that defines itself largely by opposing what its perceived enemies support. When science (or culture) makes a reasonably sound assertion, and it's met with an opposition that wields rhetoric like a weapon with no regard for rationality, it's tempting to fight fire with fire. And when the victims of that opposition are among the most marginalized in society…

The magazine in question is a science-aligned publication. Given the current public discourse, it's no surprise that science-aligned opinions will be attacked. The current public discourse is (gleefully, tribalistically) misinformed, misguided, and hell-bent on social fragmentation. Watch the bonds between citizens and reality dissolve in real time.

> Watch the bonds between citizens and reality dissolve in real time.

I've never thought our generations would need to fight this war again... Big brain and opposable thumbs are overrated.

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

#197

Post by llm_trw »

rayiner wrote: post #151
standardUser wrote: post #133

I sympathize with her. There's a big movement in this country that defines itself largely by opposing what its perceived enemies support. When science (or culture) makes a reasonably sound assertion, and it's met with an opposition that wields rhetoric like a weapon with no regard for rationality, it's tempting to fight fire with fire. And when the victims of that opposition are among the most marginalized in society…

It’s misguided and toxic to center your worldview around the “most marginalized” or to think that focusing on them somehow gives you the moral high ground or frees you from the obligation to play by the meta-rules of society and its institutions. Or to think that your worldview somehow has a monopoly on helping marginalized people. You invoke “rationality” but as Spock would say, “the needs of the many outweigh the n…

>“the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.”

The brewer, the baker and the candle stick maker need a new kidney, liver and heart. Thank you for volunteering to be killed so we can harvest your organs and keep the many alive.

Alternatively don't base your world view on a TV show from the 1960s.

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

#198

Post by [deleted] »

insane_dreamer wrote: post #38

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.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN