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

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

#961

Post by tourmalinetaco » Wed, Nov 20, 2024, 9:52 PM UTC

alsetmusic wrote: post #948

complianceowl wrote: post #803

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> The slogan is directed at fragile liberals who would rather yell like a toddler at a town hall meeting than have an informed discussion centered around facts. Who created chaos at school board meetings with yelling about trans kids and history books over the last couple of years? I have yet to hear anyone who isn't on the Right freak out about "what they're teaching our kids" the way that conservatives do.

A sizable chunk of “banned” books were sexually inappropriate for school, and some even promoted pedophilia, so I have some serious concerns if you disagree with their removal.

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

#962

Post by pesus » Wed, Nov 20, 2024, 9:53 PM UTC

valval wrote: post #959

alsetmusic wrote: post #949

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not the person you replied to, but what? The person you accused of being tricked into showing "their entire hand" was unashamed about their position and didn't try to hide it.

The difference in tone between their former and latter messages is obvious. They went from a passive aggressive “I don’t understand this idiom” straight to an unhinged tirade of “conservatives are morons” without much provocation. Of course you share that sentiment, like the overwhelming majority of people on this very left leaning message board, but I still find it funny when it comes out so explicitly.

> They went from a passive aggressive “I don’t understand this idiom” straight to an unhinged tirade of “conservatives are morons” without much provocation.

They never said that. Ironically, this is a perfect case of "facts don't care about your feelings" - even though you're upset, it doesn't change the fact that they never said that. It seems like your comments about needing self-reflection and complaining about "gaslighting" actually apply towards you instead.

Edit: regardless, this whole comment subthread is a useless waste of time and only serves as an airing of irrelevant grievances.

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

#963

Post by tombert » Wed, Nov 20, 2024, 9:55 PM UTC

tourmalinetaco wrote: post #961

alsetmusic wrote: post #948

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The slogan is directed at fragile liberals who would rather yell like a toddler at a town hall meeting than have an informed discussion centered around facts. Who created chaos at school board meetings with yelling about trans kids and history books over the last couple of years? I have yet to hear anyone who isn't on the Right freak out about "what they're teaching our kids" the way that conservatives do.

A sizable chunk of “banned” books were sexually inappropriate for school, and some even promoted pedophilia, so I have some serious concerns if you disagree with their removal.

I'm sure some of those banned books are reasonable to be banned, though I do find it amusing that the people promoting these book bans are simultaneously insisting on putting the Bible in the classroom, a book that has a passage about a woman fantasizing about donkey dicks and horse cum. That's not a joke: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel%2023%3A...

If there's actually a book in that list that promotes pedophilia, it probably should be banned; which book are you referring to?

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

#964

Post by immibis » Wed, Nov 20, 2024, 9:57 PM UTC

wtcactus wrote: post #257

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.

> Personally I've never noticed trans people and their push for rights & recognition having any impact on my life whatsoever. Do you have young children? I don’t live in the USA, I live in Europe, but I have a very small baby and I already did. The daycare, just this year announced they aren’t going to be celebrating Mother and Father’s Day anymore. Instead we will have to celebrate a Parents day. This is just a smal…

What does that have to do with transgender mothers and transgender fathers?

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

#965

Post by immibis » Wed, Nov 20, 2024, 10:05 PM UTC

UltraSane wrote: post #939

lupusreal wrote: post #925

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No one is denying that Trump won the election Not strictly true, is it? There's a bizarre theory floating around in some liberal circles that Elon Musk somehow stole the election using Starlink satellites. And in years past, George Bush stealing his election was a pretty popular theory.

Trump still says he won the last election.

Which makes him ineligible to be the president next year, but his side doesn't care about consistency

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

#966

Post by immibis » Wed, Nov 20, 2024, 10:07 PM UTC

5040 wrote: post #686

disentanglement wrote: post #588

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or perhaps the republican party has developed such an astonishing anti-science attitude that hardly any reasonable scientist can support them? Imagine doing research on vaccines and hearing the soon to be secretary of health speak on that topic. As long as these kind of people count as "conservatives" in the US, how could you be a conservative scientist?

Plenty of reasonable scientists support a political party which explicitly denies the existence of biological differences between groups of humans. In the final analysis, it seems scientists will align with organizations that hold unscientific tenets. It's probably not really a big deal.

You mean the Republicans? I don't know any reasonable scientist who supports the Republicans.

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

#967

Post by xp84 » Wed, Nov 20, 2024, 10:24 PM UTC

agentultra wrote: post #958

xp84 wrote: post #946

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's obvious that he would be criticized for "having an anti-trans bias" because saying anything that doesn't directly support the 'progressive agenda' about trans issues is, to those activists, an "anti-trans bias." Many trans people have an 'anti-trans bias,' by those same criteria.

I think his credentials speak for themselves. He cites, as expertise, two articles (in popular magazines mind you, not scientific journals) and a book he wrote. That makes him an expert on gender health issues? He has no medical degree, no published research to speak of. GLAAD reviewed one of the articles and catalogued it: https://glaad.org/gap/jesse-singal/ The conclusion and many points in the article hinge on his…

The article doesn't rely on the author's own credentials at all -- it lays out a few pieces that came out under this Helmuth's watch and opines that those were pretty poor quality. It does not take a Ph.D to know that thinking the normal distribution is a racist idea, is a dumb take. His complaints about the trans-related stuff relies on logic (the article details the argument clearly and it's not an appeal to his own authority, only to logic).

The type of junk Helmuth allowed into Scientific American shows that the right-wing is not the only party who will amplify and push any nonsense that happens to agree with or support its pet causes, without the slightest regard for facts or real science.

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

#968

Post by agentultra » Wed, Nov 20, 2024, 11:07 PM UTC

xp84 wrote: post #967

agentultra wrote: post #958

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think his credentials speak for themselves. He cites, as expertise, two articles (in popular magazines mind you, not scientific journals) and a book he wrote. That makes him an expert on gender health issues? He has no medical degree, no published research to speak of. GLAAD reviewed one of the articles and catalogued it: https://glaad.org/gap/jesse-singal/ The conclusion and many points in the article hinge on his…

The article doesn't rely on the author's own credentials at all -- it lays out a few pieces that came out under this Helmuth's watch and opines that those were pretty poor quality. It does not take a Ph.D to know that thinking the normal distribution is a racist idea, is a dumb take. His complaints about the trans-related stuff relies on logic (the article details the argument clearly and it's not an appeal to his ow…

> But what really caught my eye was SciAm's coverage of the youth gender medicine debate. This is one of the few scientific subjects on which I've established a modicum of expertise: I've written articles about it for major outlets like The Atlantic and The Economist, and am working on a book.

That’s the line where he flashes credentials that supposedly gives him credibility to critique SciAm’s coverage of gender health.

He makes the claim that SciAm’s progressive stance is dangerous to people. Wild claim from someone that hosts a podcast and wrote some terrible articles. What an expert.

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

#969

Post by immibis » Thu, Nov 21, 2024, 1:20 AM UTC

wyager wrote: post #783

disentanglement wrote: post #588

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or perhaps the republican party has developed such an astonishing anti-science attitude that hardly any reasonable scientist can support them? Imagine doing research on vaccines and hearing the soon to be secretary of health speak on that topic. As long as these kind of people count as "conservatives" in the US, how could you be a conservative scientist?

Thinking this is about science per se betrays a very naïve understanding of the political dynamics involved. It's quite easy to come up with examples where the official progressive position is nonscientific; Lysenkoism, for example, is as popular in left-leaning politics as ever (in the context of human biology). I can come up with plenty of other examples, although stating them here is guaranteed to draw some admini…

> It's quite easy to come up with examples where the official progressive position is nonscientific; Lysenkoism, for example, is as popular in left-leaning politics as ever (in the context of human biology).

You believe the left believes children of parents with amputated arms will be born with amputated arms, that genes don't exist, that any species can be changed into any other species at the genetic level by manipulating only environmental conditions, and that random mutations do not occur?

Who do you think believes this? Name specific people who aren't irrelevant.

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

#970

Post by immibis » Thu, Nov 21, 2024, 1:20 AM UTC

gotoeleven wrote: post #376

dekhn wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty happy Collins came to that conclusion and learned from it. I don't expect public health officials to have a utilitarian function that maximizes global health considering second order effects. This should have been stated more clearly at the beginning of the epidemic.

Some people were saying we should consider second order effects from the very beginning. I believe the term used for these people was "grandma killers."

Those were the same people causing the second order effects. And the second order effects they caused killed my grandma. So I don't see the problem with referring to them as such.