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

411–420 of 1001 posts

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

#411

Post by EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK »

underseacables wrote: post #16

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.

Not just search for truth and fact, but use these truths and facts to develop ways that benefit people. The meaning of "benefit" is a philosophical/political consideration.

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

#412

Post by shrubble »

tomgp wrote: post #140
jhbadger wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I have a book from Scientific American from the 1960s that has a whole section removed for the british audience because it contained instructions on how to run experiments on bears. That is a political act. I think you'd need a bit more evidence for that being "political". A far more plausible reason for the removal is that Britain doesn't have bears to any degree (there have been isolated sightings but most think t…

It's true! Britain has no bears so we like any refrence to them to be removed from our books ensuring we never have to think about them.

There’s a version of a book on birds that doesn’t have the gannet in it.

(Monty Python reference)

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

#413

Post by jorgeleo »

Hilarious!

The while message of the article is to trash talk the departing editor accusing her of political left bias... which in it self (the trash talking) is a political statement from the conservative side.

To the author of the article: you are no better than her...

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

#414

Post by jbstjohn »

davorak wrote: post #58
tekla wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'

> 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' Hopefully this is hyperbole. Any faith I have is separate from, for example, if I cancer, I am going to trust the science on the next steps of treatment.

The point is more that "the science" is too broad and vague and uncertain. The science for cancer might be that the currently best known treatment acknowledged in country X is to follow a particular treatment process. That changes across time and countries. And often the studies have assumptions baked in. So there isn't a blind belief in "the science"

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

#415

Post by dahfizz »

tpm wrote: post #324
dahfizz wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

> There is absolutely nothing political about studying the mating patterns of beetles or the composition of rocks. Well, what about studying the mating patterns of humans, studying the decisions to abort, studying the decisions to change gender? Still not at all political in your country? Then, who decides if a study gets funding, who decides if it is ethical, who decides if the results can get published? It's all po…

Scientific research is apolitical. Even the act of studying abortion or transgenderism is not inherently political.

Just because scientists have to occasionally interact with political institutions does not make Science itself a political institution. Science is fundamentally apolitical.

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

#416

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

throwaway5752 wrote: post #279
taeric wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed fully on the JEDI stuff. I was somewhat hoping it was from an April first issue. That was bad. And I thought I recognized the name. I really do not understand how trans debate has come to dominate some online discourse. I thought the complaint on the normal distribution was supposed to be claims that many things are not normally distributed? Which, isn't wrong, but is a misguided reason to not use the distribu…

" I really do not understand how trans debate has come to dominate some online discourse." It is a wedge issue, simply. It benefits entrenched interests because it allows them to anger and control people, just like they do with the War on Christmas, the War on Guns, Welfare Queens, Baby Killers, Wokeism, DEI, and so many other catchphrases that collapse nuanced issues to a sports slogan. This entire discussion is gro…

[flagged]

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

#417

Post by [deleted] »

BurningFrog wrote: post #409

To the "everything is political" crowd: The complaint is not that SciAm writes about politics. It's that they write SCIENTIFIC NONSENSE when arguing for political causes. Exhibit A: "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."

[deleted]

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

#418

Post by 23B1 »

nyeah wrote: post #407

The Reason article blurs the distinction between SciAm's opinion pieces and its factual (or putatively factual) reporting. That's disconcerting. "Opinion piece" objectively means "free bullshit zone". Reason is usually much more responsible than this. SciAm has of course fallen into terrible disrepair. But that happened long ago and the cause wasn't BS in the editorials. Who even reads editorials in a science magazin…

> The Reason article blurs the distinction between SciAm's opinion pieces and its factual (or putatively factual) reporting.

How are readers to know the difference?

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

#419

Post by VikingCoder »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #368
crote wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Video with references talking about Cass.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zI57lFn_vWk

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

#420

Post by VikingCoder »

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?

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