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

361–370 of 1001 posts

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

#361

Post by alistairSH »

trosi wrote: post #314
alistairSH wrote: post #292

Does the author not understand the concept of "opinion piece"? Every "article" he takes issue with is NOT a scientific article, but an opinion piece.

If you include enough opinion pieces on highly controversial subjects and always from the same perspective your readers will start noticing. Just because they are opinions it doesn't mean that people can't deem them ridiculous.

Sure, but the author gave us two examples over how many issues? He didn't come remotely close to making his point. :shrug:

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

#362

Post by kgwgk »

_aavaa_ wrote: post #263
codocod wrote: post #159

[flagged]

There are 2 sets of male-female pairs of the species which have different chromosomes. I am not sure what about her characterization is complete nonsense. https://www.audubon.org/news/the-fascinating-and-complicated...

In white-striped males, tan-striped males, white-striped females and tan-striped females a less enlightened person would see two sexes (male and female) and two color forms (white and tan).

> It's almost as if the White-throated Sparrow has four sexes.

Ok, whatever.

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

#363

Post by mudil »

alistairSH wrote: post #292

Does the author not understand the concept of "opinion piece"? Every "article" he takes issue with is NOT a scientific article, but an opinion piece.

Opinion pieces in scientific magazine should be based on the facts, and not just on opinions.

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

#365

Post by CleaveIt2Beaver »

everforward wrote: post #172
rayiner wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I trust you’ll maintain that view if and/or when you become a marginalized group, and the dominant group shifts the meta-rules of society and its institutions in ways you don’t like? This view usually strikes me as hypocritical because it’s almost always paired with a paranoia of becoming a marginalized group and a belief that maintaining majority status for their group is “right” in some way. It’s easy to quote Spoc…

Not to mention that Spock is consenting to his fate in taking on the role of "the few... or even the one." He's clearly rationalizing, not stating a universal constant.

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

#366

Post by alistairSH »

someuser2345 wrote: post #337
alistairSH wrote: post #292

Does the author not understand the concept of "opinion piece"? Every "article" he takes issue with is NOT a scientific article, but an opinion piece.

Scientific American isn't a social media platform; by publishing these opinion pieces, they implicitly support them. Would you be ok if they published an opinion piece bashing evolution and defending creationism?

I expect them to publish op/ed pieces they believe their subscribers will find interesting. As long as they're clearer labeled as opinion, what's the problem? Op/ed pieces have been part of journalism pretty much forever.

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

#367

Post by Interesco »

mitthrowaway2 wrote: post #72
gopher_space wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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?

Not quite "medical expert" but the author does establish (or attempt to) as a leading figure on this topic in paragraph 11:

"This is one of the few scientific subjects on which I've established a modicum of expertise"

Long way from medical expert but it does imply a higher-level understanding of the science here. Whether writing a few articles makes someone an expert is up to the individual to decide.

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

#368

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

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…

I don't think what you're saying is true. I'm unaware of any indication that Hilary Cass for example is opposed to trans healthcare, and indeed she's explicitly stated that she agrees some young people benefit from it.

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

#370

Post by tzs »

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…

That Spock quote is from Star Trek II, Wrath of Khan. Later, in Star Trek IV, The Voyage Home Chekov is in grave danger but to rescue him would put their mission at risk which would endanger many more people. This conversation occurs:

      UHURA'S VOICE
  They report his condition as critical;
  he is not expected to survive.
  
      BONES
  Jim, you've got to let me go in there!
  Don't leave him in the hands of
  Twentieth Century medicine.
  
      KIRK
  (already decided, but:)
  What do you think, Spock?
  
      SPOCK
  Admiral, may I suggest that Dr.
  McCoy is correct. We must help
  Chekov.
  
      KIRK
  (testing)
  Is that the logical thing to do,
  Spock...?
  
      SPOCK
  No, Admiral... But is the human
  thing to do.
  
      KIRK
  (takes a beat)
  Right.
Post reply on HN