Live data from Hacker News

Scientific American's departing editor and the politicization of science

reason.com

421–430 of 1001 posts

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

#421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So biological denialism is a morally superior position to hold, then? Democratic leaders can't ever seem to acknowledge biological differences between the sexes, certainly not with regards to competitive advantages. As for it being "core policy", I'd need to a see a citation, otherwise it's conjecture. The 2024 GOP platform [1] doesn't mention climate change, global warming, IPCC, et al. once, whereas the DNC's platf…

> biological denialism What is this? I would have thought that the idea that some people who are outwardly one sex have brain wiring for the other sex is quite plausible. Development is very messy.

The significant increase in non-binary gender identity and rapid onset gender dysphoria suggests there's a cultural factor at work. A 2021 systematic review found mixed results for transgender brain structures mirroring their self-identified sex, with most neuroanatomical measures mapping to their birth sex.

Though I agree with you that development is messy. We should be much more concerned about exposing children to endocrine disruptors, micro-plastics, and bizarre social dogmas.

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

#422
post #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.

It used to be all the science-y people on one side and Bible thumpers on the other... decades ago.

There has been something of a sea change.

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

#423
post #418
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?

Sorry, I can't tell whether this is sarcasm or not. If it's a genuine question, the articles are labelled.

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

#424

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...

Can you reconcile that view with the paragraph at the end?

>That doesn't mean the editor needs to be apolitical or that there's no role for SciAm to chime in on social justice issues in an informed manner, with the requisite level of humility and caution. It simply means that Scientific American needs to get back to its roots—explaining the universe's wonders to its readers, not lecturing them about how society should be ordered or distorting politically inconvenient findings.

He explicitly states he is ok with bias.

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

#425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And I thought I recognized the name. I really do not understand how trans debate has come to dominate some online discourse. Much of it is pushback against widespread ideological capture, and in particular the authoritarian idea that everyone else has to change and restrict their behavior to accommodate increasingly absurd and harmful requests from an overly demanding identity group.

What is the group demanding that is "over" what you would consider appropriate? How do their demands restrict your behavior? Personally I've never noticed trans people and their push for rights & recognition having any impact on my life whatsoever. And I say this as a devout member of a rigorous and conservative religious tradition.

On a personal level, linguistic imperialism. For all the rhetoric spewed regarding the impacts of colonialism and cultural imperialism and fervent calls to decolonize various aspects of society, the whites spewing that very same rhetoric have found a way to launder their own modern brand of imperialism into gender diversity and inclusivity by inventing and then imposing new language on that of other ethnic minorities: "Filipinx." This word shows a shocking ignorance of basic facts of Tagalog that it can't be construed in any way other than racist: there is no letter "x" in Tagalog, and the grammar of the language is already genderless. This point becomes readily apparent if you are conversing with a native Tagalog speaker who uses English as a second language, as they will readily confuse the pronouns "he" and "she" in everyday speech, the concept of gendered pronouns being, quite literally, foreign to them. Is this transphobic bigotry?

The Philippines has already undergone multiple rounds of colonization over centuries, leading to the slow-motion eradication of their native language as Spanish and especially English have overtaken it to the point where many Filipinos cannot even speak pure Tagalog any more [0]. Hasn't the western white already colonized the Philippines enough? First it was, "your pagan religion is immoral and barbaric; here, read this Bible." Now, it's, "your transphobic language is bigoted and uninclusive; here, take these pronouns." How about obeying Starfleet's Prime Directive by leaving other cultures the fuck alone?

If you don't find this top-down imposition and control of language disturbing, I suggest you review your Orwell.

On a more abstract level, "the group's" intolerance of dissenting opinion and academic inquiry, especially when such inquiry shows its positions to be internally contradictory. Take for instance Rebecca Tuvel's paper In Defense of Transracialism, published in Hypatia: A Journal of Feminist Philosophy, which argues that "considerations that support transgenderism seem to apply equally to transracialism." [1] Rather than judge this assertion on its merits and attempt to defeat it rationally, the community demanded the paper be retracted, the author was pilloried for her hateful language and dangerous ideas, and there were multiple departures from Hypatia's editorial team.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYLFoUTJuGU

[1] https://sci-hub.se/10.1111/hypa.12327

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

#426

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…

> movement in this country that defines itself largely by opposing what its perceived enemies support

I think that some of the more devious politicians realized that a "partitioning" of beliefs creates populations of in-groups and out-groups which are then manipulated against each other. Many "basic" facts are getting challenged just to create the controversy. Controversy reinforces tribalism, which in turn makes people more controllable.

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

#427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So biological denialism is a morally superior position to hold, then? Democratic leaders can't ever seem to acknowledge biological differences between the sexes, certainly not with regards to competitive advantages. As for it being "core policy", I'd need to a see a citation, otherwise it's conjecture. The 2024 GOP platform [1] doesn't mention climate change, global warming, IPCC, et al. once, whereas the DNC's platf…

> biological denialism What is this? I would have thought that the idea that some people who are outwardly one sex have brain wiring for the other sex is quite plausible. Development is very messy.

I do not believe a being could tell if it has a male or female wired brain without relying on some fictitious tropes (or call it stereotypes) about manliness or femininity. This is a constructivistic/social phenomenon.

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

#428
post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Everything is political" is such a boring tautology. 1. The comment above didn’t say “Everything is political”. 2. "Everything is political" isn’t true. One might say that many things are influenced by politics; that’s fine, but downstream influence is neither pure single-factor causality nor equality. 3. "Everything is political" isn’t a tautology either. Support for #2 and #3: There are things in the universe th…

I believe you're nit-picking instead of interacting with the content of my comment. OP did not literally say "Everything is political", they said "There are no apolitical institutions". Which is functionally the same thing. "Everything is political" is a common phrase used to express a common school of thought, [1] for example. I was interacting with this school of thought directly in my comment. I agree with you tha…

> tpm is claiming that any institution which interacts with the government in any way is political in nature

I am arguing that any institution is political by its very existence. Even if the true nature of the institutions is hidden by the current regime, as it is often the case in the West.

The funniest thing, of course, is that we are arguing under an article containing a political attack in the political magazine Reason, published by the political Reason Foundation. That's not the ideal starting point if you want to prove the possibility of apoliticalness of anything.

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

#429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Medicine is extremely complex and medical errors are the 4th leading cause of death in the US. The science on the next steps of treatment is often incomplete, variable, and dependent on the practitioners' experience. You shouldn't simply trust your doctor, but instead get a second opinion at minimum, and probably a third and fourth if you're able. It's best to triangulate on the problem, searching out varying perspec…

I would describe what you said here as a procedure for how to gather and apply the science/knowledge you are going to use for your treatment. So trusting the science, just more details on how to go about doing that. > Medicine is extremely complex and medical errors are the 4th leading cause of death in the US. Do you have the source for this? I have never seen it on the list of leading causes of death. For example:…

Preventable medical errors are one of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality. This was well documented in the Institute of Medicine report "To Err Is Human" in 2000.

https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/9728/to-err-is-hum...

Since then there have been positive system changes in terms of things like quantitative care quality measures and use of checklists. But it's still a huge problem. Whether it's the 4th leading cause of death is unclear, it depends on how you analyze the data and what assumptions you make.

https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2018.0738

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

#430
post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Your argument builds upon two assumptions: 1. There is a finite number of pre-defined gender-identities which are not interchangeable. 2. Identity is bound to biological organs

I see no proof of these assumptions. How humans see each other and themselves is not primarily chosen by their unchangeable (save medical interventions) organs but by how we are read by our peers. We are not talking about a purely biological problem, but a social one. Humanity has, for the longest time being, assigned fixed profiles to these readings, which luckily has started to break up in the last decades. Now of course each individual is free to base parts of their own identity on their unchangeable biological traits, and you also are free to do so, but that does no generalize to the whole population. Humans should be free to base their identity to their own liking.

This can lead to some cases which do not make sense like your "male menstrual cycle" example, granted. These anecdotes however as well do not generalize towards the initial claim of the other user and the first assumption.

Post reply on HN