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

831–840 of 1001 posts

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

#831

Post by Agingcoder »

mtlynch wrote: post #790
chrisbrandow wrote: post #671

I remember when that article wildly mis-describing the normal distribution came out and I was so sad. It was just so embarrassing. The author was in no way qualified, yet the burden rests on the editors of a publication with the reputation to catch this incredible incorrect statement to come out. I usually think woke/antiwoke complaints go too far, but that was such a failure.

Reference for the curious: https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=6202

Thanks. I didn’t realize how bad things were. I’m not American. Is this an example of America’s culture war I keep reading about ?

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

#832

Post by tmp4 »

Manuel_D wrote: post #812
pfdietz wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

It is very common for left-leaning figures in the US to deny that trans women and girls possess any advantage over cis females in sports. In reality trans women still possess greater bone density, higher average height, higher red blood cell concentrations, higher VO2 max, more fast-twitch muscle fiber and more.

[flagged]

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

#833

Post by roenxi »

cogman10 wrote: post #763
roenxi wrote: post #698

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He also pushed ivermectin which studies show has no statistically significant effect on COVID. Studies showed that it had a statistically significant effect on COVID. The problem is that with hindsight it is obvious any sufficiently powerful study will show it has a statistically significant effect so the existence of that effect isn't particularly interesting evidence. There will be people who have both COVID and…

> Studies showed that it had a statistically significant effect on COVID. The problem is that with hindsight it is obvious any sufficiently powerful study will show it has a statistically significant effect so the existence of that effect isn't particularly interesting evidence. Preliminary studies with small n showed a statistically significant effect. Follow up studies with larger n showed no such effect. Meta stud…

If you believe that, it implies you believe someone infested with parasites expects the same COVID outcomes as someone who is mostly healthy. That is a pretty extreme claim, to the point where 1 study (or review, in this case) isn't really an argument. It is much more likely that that they just aren't picking up the statistical signal that is obviously going to be there somewhere.

There isn't a shortage of studies showing an ivermectin-COVID relationship. https://c19ivm.org/meta.html makes for interesting reading, although it is quite misleading because it is probably measuring parasite prevalence rather than anything new.

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

#834

Post by regpertom »

treflop wrote: post #682
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…

I think this related to the “critical thinking” skill that all my teachers always stressed about growing up. But I still don’t know how to put in useful words what “critical thinking” is because it’s not one thing. It requires synthesizing a lot of information together in very specific and meticulous ways. And through feedback, collecting your previous thoughts and keeping track of how often you are correct or incorr…

I go with critical thinking being thinking about thinking, or meta thinking. Which is to say have a thought, doesn’t really matter what, and then analyse it. Example is throw a dart at the board and then evaluate it compared to your expectations and desires. Feel free to throw a bullseye right away but that’s a different thing. Which is to say, imo, that critical thinking isn’t about being perfect all the time.

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

#835

Post by tombert »

complianceowl wrote: post #803
tombert wrote: post #741

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is kind of why I get annoyed at the "facts don't care about your feelings!!!" crowd. Sure, the raw facts don't care about your feelings, but the way that these facts are interpreted and presented absolutely do care. Two people can look at the exact same data and draw widely different but comparably accurate conclusions out of it. Using your Coke example, the raw fact that "exercise is good for reducing obesity"…

Why is it that people can't wrap their head around the "Facts don't care about your feelings." slogan? I don't agree with everything that movement says, but that slogan means exactly what it's saying; the problem is what everyone like yourself adds to it. What you are adding has originated and lives in your mind, and you project it onto something that has nothing to do with your thought that you are projecting. The s…

I am saying that the statement “facts don’t care about your feelings” is a useless statement and it doesn’t make people who say it seem smart. People who say the slogan seemingly universally seem to think it makes them very smart. It doesn’t convey any information to anyone, all it is used for is for morons like Ben Shapiro to automatically dismiss people for being emotional.

You’re right, I don’t like conservatives very much, but I have seen left leaning people fetishizing stoicism and I think those people are dumb too.

ETA:

Also, slightly confused how I “gaslit” anyone. You can go through my post history and I am generally pretty happy to acknowledge I don’t like conservatives very much.

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

#836

Post by jmward01 »

trinsic2 wrote: post #811
jmward01 wrote: post #708

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have grown grumpier as the last decade has gone on and it is probably me just getting older but there is a point where you say enough is enough. You are starting with the premise that researchers are manipulating things and ignoring things so you have already 'won' by bringing doubt where there isn't any. 'I wonder how much of horrible terrible evil conspiratorial thing x is happening...' isn't a discussion opener,…

That's a good point. I tend to stay away from negative thinking about hot topics like this for that very reason. Even though I have my doubts about something, I tend to keep it to myself because I don't want to bring people down and anyway someone might come up with a way to look at, or take action in a positive light. But I still feel its important for people to act from their own values, right or wrong, and not fro…

Science done well is distrustful of its own results. The key is to trust science practiced by trustworthy institutions and individuals and reported on in an accurate and informative way. Similar to good journalism, trust should be earned and verified at every level. Not every time, that isn't reasonable, but enough that you aren't surprised at what you find when you do additional checking. Check sources. Look for conflicts of interest. Survey the field. These are all basic things that people think they do but often don't.

I'll also say that that 'I don't trust science' implies that the scientific method is somehow corrupt. The scientific method is a thing that can be used well or badly. 'I don't trust science' is like saying 'I don't trust statistics'. The wrong person can use out of context science, done well, to imply totally absurd things.

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

#837

Post by adr1an »

agentultra wrote: post #786
hamolton wrote: post #777

The author's critiques seem nit-picky to me. I'd like to hear from somebody that follows this, scrolling through SciAm articles published in the past few years, it seems like the bulk of content is still normal popular science. While it does publish a large chunk of partisan opinions now, a lot of them are pretty normal party-line defenses of democrats and their causes with respect to science, health, and whatnot. Wh…

Make of it what you will, but the author's wikipedia page seems to put this article in perspective: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Singal

[flagged]

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

#838

Post by taeric »

tptacek wrote: post #827
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 read it as a contrarian think-piece, what people used to call a "Slate pitch" when Slate was still relevant. It lands with a big wet gross "thud" in the context of a lot of the rest of what SciAm has been running.

I think most of the concern over "woke" themes in entertainment are straw men arguments. Such that it is frustrating to see opinions like this given credence.

I still feel the discourse is overblown. Would have preferred to see those lines as jokes, though. That said, will look into "slate pitches." Strong chance I am just ignorant in a new way here.

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

#839

Post by anonfordays »

foldr wrote: post #824
anonfordays wrote: post #552

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The actual sex chromosomes of the birds, and hence they're gametes, have significant differences between the two colours. This is an incorrect understanding of gametes and supergenes [0]. There are still only two gametes (only two sexes), but the two morphs (white and tan supergenes[0]) can only effectively reproduce with the same morph of the opposite sex (again, only two sexes, only two gametes between the four mo…

It seems that you should take issue with the paper rather than with the journalist who reported what it says.

There is no issue with the paper. The paper does not support the claim.

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

#840

Post by [deleted] »

gadders wrote: post #277
jl6 wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Red tribe orthodoxy has a lot of disdain for people with trans identities. Blue tribe orthodoxy has maximal dain for those people. But both tribes are willing to promote pseudoscience to achieve their goals. Singal occupies a narrow sliver of the political possibility space where sympathy for those identities can exist at the same time as supporting evidence-based medicine.

Yes, I think there is a middle ground. Trans people are clearly going through something , and I think a bit more sympathy from the Right, particularly for adolescents wouldn't go amiss. Puberty in the age of social media, anxiety and other mental health challenges is rough. You can hate the policies/movement and still have sympathy for the individuals. However, I'm not sure that encouraging young people to make one-w…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN