Live data from Hacker News

Scientific American's departing editor and the politicization of science

reason.com

241–250 of 1001 posts

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

#241

I grew up believing that science was the search for truth and fact, and that it should be constantly challenged to further that. What has happened I think, is that there has been a great polarization of science as government and groups have used and twisted it to fit a political agenda. Which essentially stops that search for truth. Challenging scientific conclusions should be encouraged not cancelled.

You do realize the criticism of the Scientific American editor is mostly by people who don't read it, and believe the earth is 6000 years old.

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

#242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Marxism started spreading in universities decades ago. It was rooted in conflict theory. It put the class (group) before the individual. It divided them up into oppressors and the oppressed. Its notion of “justice” was taking power from the “oppressors” to redistribute to the “oppressed.” Over time, people developed identity politics which put your group first but with race, gender, etc. That got merged with Marxist…

> their ideology is similar to Marxism so… it’s not marxism then? something similar to is not the same as .

It’s not. It’s just a label they give the recent ideologies. That’s why my original comment talked about a large group of people pushing “Marxism, intersectionality, and hardcore feminism.” I treated them distinctly since some, but not all, are actual Marxists.

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

#243
post #222

The issue isn’t that Scientific American leans “pro-Democrat” and it is political. It always has, and that’s understandable. The real problem is that the modern Democratic Party increasingly aligns with postmodernism, which is inherently anti-science (Postmodernism challenges the objectivity and universality of scientific knowledge, framing it as a social construct shaped by culture, power, and historical context, ra…

[flagged]

Yes, a portion of Democratic Party leadership has appeared to move away from science and reason in some cases.

One example that frustrated me as a taxpayer and parent with kids in school: here in California, it was Democratic policymakers who removed Algebra from high school curricula, arguing that it would help address disparities among minority students.

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

#244

A lot of criticism of SA seems to be from those who don't read the magazine. It is still mostly just thorough coverage of developments in physics, biology, engineering, and other pretty uncontroversial science topics and this coverage has not 'gone downhill'. It is a lot of work to do good reporting of an area of science by talking to a range of experts in that area and SA still does good work here. Some topics are p…

The author of this article very (in)famously re-launched his career as a writer (prior to GNC youth he wrote mostly culture pieces) by misinterpreting a scientific paper on the subject he now claims to be an expert on. I don’t think he did this maliciously, but I do think, like many writers, he struggles to digest scientific literature accurately.

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

#245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What are the delusions that you speak of? Because it seems to me that you are mixing up identity and illness. Also: if a identity or an emotion is real to me, does it not become real through that act itself?

It's quite informative to read the forums where trans-identifying people discuss this, to see how these false beliefs develop. One can observe the trajectory of, say, a male who wants to be a woman. He'll start out with desire to be a woman, move onto the idea that he "feels like a woman" despite having no insight whatsoever into what being embodied as female is actually like, and then slowly, within the echo chamber of like-minded males, he'll start to believe he actually is a woman.

Sometimes this will be through believing he has a "female brain" in a male body. Or perhaps he might think he's "born in the wrong body". Or maybe he'll start to believe that being a woman or a man is based on some internal "gender identity" of which he has the female type. Sometimes this is given a spiritual aspect, like a female soul.

If he takes drugs to suppress testosterone and boost estrogen, he may start to believe that he is no longer of the male sex but is becoming female. Even more so if he elects to have surgery to remove his testicles and fashion his penis and scrotum into a non-functional cosmetic simulacrum of the female external sex organs. Some of these males even start to believe they're having a menstrual cycle, despite lacking any anatomy involved in this process.

However he reaches these conclusions about himself, every single one of these beliefs is false. These are delusions.

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

#246

I grew up believing that science was the search for truth and fact, and that it should be constantly challenged to further that. What has happened I think, is that there has been a great polarization of science as government and groups have used and twisted it to fit a political agenda. Which essentially stops that search for truth. Challenging scientific conclusions should be encouraged not cancelled.

> What has happened I think, is that there has been a great polarization of science as government and groups have used and twisted it to fit a political agenda.

Exactly. "In this house we believe ... science is real." is about the most unscientific sentiment possible. There, the word "science" exists to give the air of authority to a set of ideological and policy positions.

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

#247
post #222

The issue isn’t that Scientific American leans “pro-Democrat” and it is political. It always has, and that’s understandable. The real problem is that the modern Democratic Party increasingly aligns with postmodernism, which is inherently anti-science (Postmodernism challenges the objectivity and universality of scientific knowledge, framing it as a social construct shaped by culture, power, and historical context, ra…

Can you give an example of an evidence-based pursuit of truth that was not in any way shaped by culture, power, or historical context?

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

#248
post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

[flagged]

> There probably have been more instances of furore over a _potential_ trans athlete who aren't trans

Actually, most of those "potential" trans turn out to be actual trans. That college volleyball athlete has even been sued by her own teammate.

> It's a "problem" way overblown by anti-trans activists.

I get that there are many loud voices on this topic right now. But I rather having this right now then later down the road, where the right has become wrong and the wrong has become right.

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

#249
post #222

The issue isn’t that Scientific American leans “pro-Democrat” and it is political. It always has, and that’s understandable. The real problem is that the modern Democratic Party increasingly aligns with postmodernism, which is inherently anti-science (Postmodernism challenges the objectivity and universality of scientific knowledge, framing it as a social construct shaped by culture, power, and historical context, ra…

I agree that postmodernism, or at least your definition of it, is so much nonsense (in the realm of hard sciences, at least - soft science unfortunately does suffer from human contextual bias issues). I don't read SciAm (maybe that's an issue), but I'm a bit suspicious that this could be a political hit piece. That being said, if any of the claims in the article are true (e.g. calling statistic normal distribution cu…

>but I'm a bit suspicious that this could be a political hit piece.

Reason is right-libertarian and has to occasionally shoot at least a few bullets in the direction of the opposing front on the culture war lest the conservative barrier troops[0] shoot them. Likewise there's a lot of right-wing authoritarians who try fishing for new suckers in the right-libertarian pool. This weird interplay between libertarians and authoritarians on the right side of the political compass has been a thing since at least when capital-L libertarian figures were talking about "paleoconservatives" and Ron Paul was paying ghostwriters to write all those hilariously racist newsletters back in the 90s.

[0] Barrier troops are soldiers in an army whose job it is to shoot at their own deserters.

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

#250

A lot of criticism of SA seems to be from those who don't read the magazine. It is still mostly just thorough coverage of developments in physics, biology, engineering, and other pretty uncontroversial science topics and this coverage has not 'gone downhill'. It is a lot of work to do good reporting of an area of science by talking to a range of experts in that area and SA still does good work here. Some topics are p…

I know that I and many others switched to American Scientist years ago. SA has definitely gone downhill since the 80's. I would describe it as as bit softer/popular when I made the switch. I have no experience in the last few years.
Post reply on HN