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

281–290 of 1001 posts

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

#281

Post by School-Cotton »

tptacek wrote: post #74

I want to be sympathetic to Singal, whose writing always seems to generate shitstorms disproportionate to anything he's actually saying, and whose premise in this piece I tend to agree with (as someone whose politics largely line up with those of the outgoing editor in chief, I've found a lot of what SciAm has posted to be cringe-worthy and destructive). But what is he on about here? Or that the normal distribution—a…

The Wilson article really does say:

> First, the so-called normal distribution of statistics assumes that there are default humans who serve as the standard that the rest of us can be accurately measured against.

That’s at best sloppily written, regardless of what one thinks about Wilson. The normal distribution is a mathematical tool; it doesn’t “assume” anything about some particular concrete topic like measuring humans.

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

#282

Post by gadders »

nemomarx wrote: post #261
jl6 wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Red tribe orthodoxy has a lot of disdain for people with trans identities. Blue tribe orthodoxy has maximal dain for those people. But both tribes are willing to promote pseudoscience to achieve their goals. Singal occupies a narrow sliver of the political possibility space where sympathy for those identities can exist at the same time as supporting evidence-based medicine.

Before I started transition I read through the available literature (this would be back in 2010-2015 ish, before it was quite so hot button) and the general consensus wasn't with Singals position then. I don't think skepticism ought to be ruled out or anything, but hormone therapy is better studied than the use of most antidepressants at this point. (although it could still use better study on particular dosage and e…

The Cass report in the UK was pretty clear that there isn't enough evidence to base decisions on https://cass.independent-review.uk/home/publications/final-r...

>>>

While a considerable amount of research has been published in this field, systematic evidence reviews demonstrated the poor quality of the published studies, meaning there is not a reliable evidence base upon which to make clinical decisions, or for children and their families to make informed choices.

The strengths and weaknesses of the evidence base on the care of children and young people are often misrepresented and overstated, both in scientific publications and social debate.

The controversy surrounding the use of medical treatments has taken focus away from what the individualised care and treatment is intended to achieve for individuals seeking support from NHS gender services.

The rationale for early puberty suppression remains unclear, with weak evidence regarding the impact on gender dysphoria, mental or psychosocial health. The effect on cognitive and psychosexual development remains unknown.

The use of masculinising / feminising hormones in those under the age of 18 also presents many unknowns, despite their longstanding use in the adult transgender population. The lack of long-term follow-up data on those commencing treatment at an earlier age means we have inadequate information about the range of outcomes for this group.

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

#283

Post by scarmig »

toshredsyousay wrote: post #208

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…

Looking at https://www.scientificamerican.com/ I see the following front page topics and articles:

- Nutrition: It’s Actually Healthier to Enjoy Holiday Foods without the Anxiety

- Climate Change: Climate Change Is Altering Animals' Colors

- Climate Change: An Off Day in Brooklyn—And on Uranus

- Cats: Miaou! Curly Tails Give Cats an ‘Accent’

- Games: Spellement

- Opinion: We Can Live without Fossil Fuels

- Games: Science Jigsaw

- Arts: Poem: ‘The First Bite’

Don't know if it's representative, but it doesn't surprise me at all and is exactly why I don't subscribe.

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

#284

Post by felixgallo »

tlogan wrote: post #243
felixgallo wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[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.

There is definitely a small Faction of left wingers with unusual ideas. Generalizing that To a broader conclusion about democrats is wild.

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

#285

Post by blackguardx »

tlogan wrote: post #243
felixgallo wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[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.

I don’t think high school math is on the Democratic party platform in California. In any case, no one was advocating cutting out Algebra. The debate was about moving Algebra I from middle school to High School and removing Calculus from High School. I think delaying Algebra for all students is probably a bad idea. Removing Calculus from high school only makes sense if they replace it with something like Statistics.

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

#286

Post by thaiaiabdidn »

tekla wrote: post #25
refurb wrote: post #4

Yikes, quite the scathing article and example of a the politicization of science. “Trust the science” has always bothered me for two reasons: 1) science is frequently not black and white and anyone who has done hard science research knows there are plenty of competing opinions among scientists and 2) while scientific facts are facts, we still need to decide on how to act on those facts and that decision making proces…

Anyone who unironically says “Trust the science” automatically tells me that they are probably not an informed person. I trust that most research is done in good faith and at least some of it is useful. Saying 'Trust the science' might as well be saying 'Trust in God'

> Saying 'Trust the science' might as well be saying 'Trust in God'

In the past, many cultures had priests doing most of the science as well.

Ultimately it all boils down to trust. The common man doesn’t have time nor intellect to evaluate “the science”. When scientists display obvious bias, they lose trust, since they claim to be impartial. It’d be better if they didn’t claim to be impartial.

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

#287

Post by xpe »

dahfizz wrote: post #272
tpm wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are no apolitical institutions. You would see that more clearly when visiting (or god forbid living in) a dictatorship or totalitarian regime, where all institutions are either brought in line with the regime or abolished. And I do mean all including gardening clubs. Enjoy institutions having the freedom to express political opinions, it is not guaranteed to last.

"Everything is political" is such a boring tautology. Everything exists within the political climate of modern society. Institutions are forced to navigate the political landscape in which they exist. But that does not make the institutions political in nature. There is absolutely nothing political about studying the mating patterns of beetles or the composition of rocks. When people say that SA is being political, t…

The word “political” is rife with confusion. Careful discussion requires slowing down long enough to make sure different people are talking about the same thing.

One of my favorite definitions of politics is the set of non-violent ways of resolving disagreements, whether interpersonal, organizational, or governmental.

Others may reserve the word politics to only apply to governmental issues, campaigning, elections, coalition building, etc.

P.S. Language is our primary method of communication. Ponder this: why are people so bad at it? Do people really not understand that symbols can have different meanings? Do they forget? Do they want to get peeved because they want to think that other people don’t know what words mean?

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

#288

Post by [deleted] »

crispyambulance wrote: post #252

I read Scientific American from time to time. It's not what the Reason author claims it is. It's a popular, non-specialist science magazine that reaches out to the public (mostly through Dentist's office waiting rooms). It's OK for it to have a political point of view. I see this a lot lately. Someone takes issue with something(s) in a magazine or journal and tries to burn them to a crisp because of it. Even on here,…

[deleted]

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

#289

Post by insane_dreamer »

crackercrews wrote: post #48
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.

Why does a scientific magazine have an Opinion section in the first place? Has it always? I would guess the number of Opinion pieces has gone up dramatically in the last decade.

> Why does a scientific magazine have an Opinion section in the first place?

Nature has an Opinion section. New Scientist does too. Most magazines do.

> I would guess the number of Opinion pieces has gone up dramatically in the last decade

Did you do any research on this or just throwing out random guesses?

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

#290

Post by Philorandroid »

BadHumans wrote: post #270
Philorandroid wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tu quoque; Republicans harboring fringe beliefs in some cases isn't a response to Democrats' mainstream acceptance of beliefs that the scientific method doesn't accurately reflect reality.

I think it is fair to say that through the nomination process, whoever is voted to run as the Republican nominee for president is considered to be the best representative for the party. Looking at the president-elect and all of the leaders of the party, saying they have "fringe beliefs in some cases" is severely downplaying it.

That's a naive way to see it. People vote _against_ the other candidate, against what they fear is worse. And, if the theory that the frontrunner is the best representation of the party holds true, it speaks quite poorly for the Democrats appointing Harris despite Biden winning the vote of his party, no?

And, again, tu quoque; even if the GOP was exhaustively comprised of reality-evading lunatics, voters and all, it wouldn't excuse stooping to their level -- the DNC's _explicit_ support of racial identitarianism, benevolent racism, and biological denialism run in direct opposition to this supposed moral high ground they tacitly hold.

Post reply on HN