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

501–510 of 1001 posts

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

#501

Post by Eextra953 »

rayiner wrote: post #7
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…

The second point is critical. Relevant testimony from the former head of the NIH during the pandemic, Francis Collins: https://www.bladenjournal.com/opinion/72679/confession-of-a-... > “If you’re a public-health person and you’re trying to make a decision, you have this very narrow view of what the right decision is.” “So you attach infinite value to stopping the disease and saving a life. You attach zero value to wh…

I am taking a graduate level public health course and this trade off is literally covered in the first lecture its something they call prevention paradox. It's surprising to see that the head of the NIH would say something like this when it's literally part of the curriculum for public health. I'm so tired of political opinions masqueraded as we know better than the experts or we know better than the scientist.

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

#502

Post by alwa »

throwaway0123_5 wrote: post #467
iwontberude wrote: post #444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are too many leaps of abstraction, which to me, proves the missing horseshoe nail is irrelevant in the big picture. Too many other things could have transpired positively for the kingdom in a space so expansive. It’s classic scapegoating. “Bro my controller totally didn’t work that time! We would’ve won the match otherwise I promise.”

Tbh it seems entirely plausible to me that a messenger being unable to deliver an important message could have an outsized effect on that outcome of a battle. What if they're letting their side know about a surprise attack?

Seems also plausible that risks might apply to the messenger that wouldn’t apply to the troops in garrison—that is, the thousands of other horseshoe nails in inventory could have gone unmissed or doomed a less important horse.

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

#503

Post by Supermancho »

23B1 wrote: post #462
nyeah wrote: post #423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Labeled by whom, and following what set of rules or guidelines? Are those rules agreed upon and enforced in some way? What are the consequences for breaking those rules?

> Labeled by whom, and following what set of rules or guidelines?

Ostensibly, the staff. More specifically, editors and leadership.

> Are those rules agreed upon and enforced in some way?

Editorials were labeled to distinguish scientific findings, distilled to simple language for a larger audience, from opinion pieces and what-ifs. This evaporated over time.

> What are the consequences for breaking those rules?

The content wasn't published.

Asking inane questions with simple answers, that are readily available, is not productive.

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

#504

Post by jorgeleo »

Levitz wrote: post #424
jorgeleo wrote: post #413

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 shoul…

No need to reconcile because one thing does not excuse the other.

If I go complaining that you go around beating people up, and that is why I will go and beat you up, and at the end I claim that it is ok because I agree with hitting people is ok doesn't excuse my action.

Also, stating the obvious (SA needs to get back to its roots) serves in this case as a straw man argument, the point was how bad an inexcusable was the editor behavior, not what the roots of SA should be.

This article is closer to the son of the president in the "Don't look up" movie than anything else. It tries to push the previous editor to a square of just do scientific work... but there is a point, in defense of the editor, where people claiming that the earth is flat need to be push back. Objective truth needs to prevail regardless of how people feel about it politically, and it is ok, in my book, to defend that

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

#505

Post by giraffe_lady »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #493
giraffe_lady wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The operators and customers of this spa noticed: https://x.com/KatieDaviscourt/status/1858611351901663550 https://x.com/ItsYonder/status/1858673181315506307

Yeah that judge, a woman, explicitly labels that "notice" as discriminatory. Seems pretty clear cut.

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

#506

Post by giraffe_lady »

ryandv wrote: post #425
giraffe_lady wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I don't see the connection between tagalog and trans people sorry.

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

#507

Post by jbstjohn »

taeric wrote: post #51
devindotcom wrote: post #31

Every piece called out here is clearly labeled "opinion" - did they even read the normal news and analysis sections? Countless newspapers and outlets and actual scientific journals have opinion/editorial sections that are generally very well firewalled from the factual content. You could collect the worst hot takes from a few years of nearly any site with a dedicated opinion page and pretend that it has gone downhill…

I'm unsure that helps things? Maybe if some of the excerpts were jokes? The criticism of JEDI is particularly laughable. If sad. I say that as someone that finds the acronym cringe worthy. So, yeah, I agree that the standards are lower in these sections. I question if they are non existent.

"I'm not questioning your standards; I'm denying their existence entirely."

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

#508

Post by Supermancho »

knowitnone wrote: post #488
nyeah wrote: post #423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

So the articles themselves have no opinions? They don't make conclusions and use carefully chosen words to sway the reader?

Other than to simplify the concepts for a subjectively "inclined" reader, no. Language is not mathematics. There is no perfection in the area of communication. This is not an insightful observation.

Scientific America aimed to be informative and useful in context of that information, when I was a reader (80s).

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

#509

Post by kgwgk »

andrepd wrote: post #468
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,…

It's not even what's "published in the magazine" as such, they take issue with opinion pieces saying stuff like "the complicated legacy of E.O. Wilson". It's news to me that disagreeing with part of the work of someone in behavioural psychology (of all things) is "setting aflame the edifice of science", but here we are...

The instructions for opinion and analysis articles used to say:

“We look for fact-based arguments. Therefore, if you are making scientific claims—aside from those that are essentially universally accepted (e.g., evolution by natural selection explains the diversity of life on Earth; vaccines do not cause autism; the Earth is about 93 million miles from the Sun) we ask you to link to original scientific research in reputable journals or assertions from reputable science-oriented institutions. Using secondary sources such as news reports or advocacy organizations that do not do actual research is not sufficient.”

Now it says just “You should back up claims with evidence.” but opinion doesn’t mean anything goes.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/page/submission-instructi...

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

#510

Post by mrguyorama »

School-Cotton wrote: post #304
stefan_ wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is why reorganizing all school systems around teaching the standardized test and judging teachers by these results has been such an overwhelming success that "virtually nobody [..] disagrees with".

The US has probably the least test-focused education system in the developed world (you don’t need to take any exam to graduate high school except in some cases an extremely easy one as a formality). Would you claim the US education system is better than the UK, France or Germany?

There is no "US" education system in reality. There is a "Maine" education system, and a "Colorado" education system, and a "Florida" education system.

They have wildly different rules, designs, systems, and results.

Post reply on HN