Scientific American's departing editor and the politicization of science • Hacker News Board

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

#611

Post by devmor » Tue, Nov 19, 2024, 6:38 PM UTC

red016 wrote: post #11

dmagee wrote: post #3

Trust in institutions is at an all time low. The last thing we need is for these institutions to veer away from their goals to push a political agenda. Good riddance to her.

I used to love Popular Science but these magazines all died 20 years ago. Science reporting was the first type of journalism to go, much easier to write clickbait about current events. Remember Scientific American already endorsed Biden last election which was a wtf moment.

Why do you find it a "wtf moment" that a scientific magazine would endorse the opposition candidate to one threatening to all but destroy federal funding for most scientific research in the country?

It seems clear to me that this would be the most appropriate circumstance for such an endorsement.

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

#612

Post by Supermancho » Tue, Nov 19, 2024, 6:39 PM UTC

23B1 wrote: post #563

Supermancho wrote: post #503

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 c…

You're not thinking deeply enough about the problem, which is annoying because I'm addressing the main thrust of the original article. Staff/editors/leadership cannot be trusted to label correctly if they are serving their own agendas. This is a real problem when we're looking to science to guide sociopolitical decision making, e.g. during a pandemic, or in childcare, or with the environment.

> You're not thinking deeply enough about the problem,

> Staff/editors/leadership cannot be trusted to label correctly if they are serving their own agendas. This is a real problem when we're looking to science to guide sociopolitical decision making,

...or you know, you could have stated what you meant instead of asking questions you didn't care about for your own reasons.

None of what you say applies to a publication any more than other forms of communication. There is a lot of philosophical rambling in these threads.

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

#613

Post by squigz » Tue, Nov 19, 2024, 6:40 PM UTC

dahfizz wrote: post #415

tpm wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

What does politicized science look like, exactly? TFA seems to link to several opinion pieces, which aren't science, so I'm a little unclear.

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

#614

Post by sangnoir » Tue, Nov 19, 2024, 6:40 PM UTC

FredPret wrote: post #566

Bhilai wrote: post #546

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Scientific American's challenge to certain political beliefs doesn't undermine its commitment to scientific awareness. I find their articles more informative than arbitrary podcasts. No one claims SciAM is the sole source of truth, but it's a valuable resource. You're free to ignore it, just as I ignore most podcasters. If you rely on Joe Rogan for science and claim it be truer than SciAm, there's little to discuss h…

It's like we're talking past each other. SciAm and the media are held to a higher standard... by themselves. They claim a position of authority. So when they are biased or get something wrong, it's a problem because their brands have a halo of truth left over from olden days. Joe Rogan doesn't claim a position of authority. So when he is biased or gets something wrong, it's just what's to be expected from a bro with…

Your assumption is that there exists an "apolitical truth" that science should aspire to. There isn't.

There are many truths that can be discovered through the scientific method. Those truths are inherently political (see elsewhere on this discussion about the truthful obesity research funded by Coca-Cola that focused on exercise rather than sugar intake)

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

#615

Post by squigz » Tue, Nov 19, 2024, 6:42 PM UTC

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…

> When people say that SA is being political, they mean that SA is using science to thinly veil their political activism. That's very different from your definition of "political"

Could you provide some examples? TFA seems to link to opinion pieces at Scientific American and not actual research, so I'm a little unclear.

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

#616

Post by thrance » Tue, Nov 19, 2024, 6:42 PM UTC

exoverito wrote: post #473

thrance wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't worry, you won't have to worry about what they teach your children in school anymore - Republicans are going to destroy the department of education.

Can you tell me what the Department of Education has measurably accomplished since its establishment in 1979? Inflation adjusted spending per student has increased by about 3X since then, and test scores have not improved, even falling in recent years. Financial aid for college has perversely led to vastly overinflated tuitions, while subsidizing many useless degrees. These problems are not a simple matter of funding…

I'm not even American, but if you think you can simply cut a budget to solve your problems, you're delusional. Americans are on average much more educated and skilled (in the labor market) than in 1979, obviously.

In my country, most colleges are state owned and free, I had an engineering degree for €600 per year. Skyrocketing tuitions in America is purely a result of profiteering, largely enabled by the republicans and not kept in check by the weak democrats.

But if you still think gutting your public services will improve anything, just look at what austerity did to the UK.

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

#617

Post by unethical_ban » Tue, Nov 19, 2024, 6:44 PM UTC

Xcelerate wrote: post #392

tivert wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Exactly. "In this house we believe ... science is real." is about the most unscientific sentiment possible. There, the word "science" exists to give the air of authority to a set of ideological and policy positions.

I always found that quote kind of funny. So the scientists who have views on political issues that are the extreme opposite of yours (because there are many such people)... what then exactly?

Your sentence has grammatical issues.

I assume you're implying that people who advocate for cultural support of science are hyper liberal and would be hostile to any science conducted by a hyper conservative. I reject this assertion.

"Trust the science" means that peer reviewed science and scientific consensus should carry weight, and too many people are anti-intellectual.

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

#618

Post by matwood » Tue, Nov 19, 2024, 6:45 PM UTC

dgfitz wrote: post #517

SolarNet wrote: post #466

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the argument the poster is making is as root cause analysis. The root cause of the messenger failing was the missing nail. Sure it could have been many other things, but in this case it was the nail. And if it was a pitched battle that was narrowly lost by one message, sure, they could have won or lost because of a dozen other factors, but in this case it was the missing message. There are likely many other i…

This is a very well thought-out comment. I commend you for it. Sometimes the problem really is tiny. Ill look for the link, but I read an article about how Valve, the company, was saved by an intern. I think details matter.

> I think details matter

For me, this is the moral of horseshoe nail story. It's something I preach to my team - details matter. I’ll add that unfortunately we often don’t know which details will matter ahead of time.

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

#619

Post by WarOnPrivacy » Tue, Nov 19, 2024, 6:46 PM UTC

squigz wrote: post #594

GMoromisato wrote: post #578

I'm conflicted about all of this because I gave up reading Scientific American when I felt it had become too political. But of course, you can't remove politics from science. Scientists are human and humans are political. When a scientist chooses an area to investigate, it is influenced by their politics. You can ask scientists to be factual, but you can't ask them to be non-political. It's not SciAm's fault that sci…

It might be because what being a "conservative" in America means has been grotesquely distorted into what it is today.

> being a "conservative" in America means has been grotesquely distorted into what it is today.

I am a recovering conservative and agree with this. Today's right wing occupies a space that I find to be distressing and deeply concerning. From my perspective, conservatism has become thin-skinned, extremely malleable and hair-trigger reactive - the same complaints we lobbed at the left, 20y ago. From my perspective, the right is dominated by the same boogeymen we once visualized and railed against.

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

#620

Post by hn_throwaway_99 » Tue, Nov 19, 2024, 6:48 PM UTC

Crayfish3348 wrote: post #523

A book came out in August 2024 called "Soda Science: Making the World Safe for Coca-Cola," by Susan Greenhalgh. She's a professor (emeritus) at Harvard. The book is a history. It shows how the Coca-Cola Company turned to "science" when the company was beset by the obesity crisis of the 1990s and health advocates were calling for, among other things, soda taxes. Coca-Cola "mobilized allies in academia to create a soda…

There are few slogans I hate more than "trust the science", primarily because it aligns scientific results with faith, which is exactly what science is not about. Science is fundamentally about skepticism, not trust.

Now, obviously that skepticism can be misused by some rando with no qualifications or even time spent researching telling you to be "skeptical" of people who have spent decades trying to figure shit out. What I really believe we should be teaching people is "what are the incentives?". That is, it's become very clear that many people are susceptible to provably false information, so we should train people to try to examine what incentives someone has for speaking out in the first place (and that includes scientists, too).

This is why I hate most conspiracy theories - even if you take everything the conspiracy supposes at face value, conspiracists don't explain how their conspiracy is somehow kept so secret when tons of people involved would have extremely strong incentives to expose it.