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

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

#791

Post by sunshowers » Tue, Nov 19, 2024, 10:08 PM UTC

aint_that_so wrote: post #676

ryandv wrote: post #425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 got banned from a leftist Discord that I'd spent years on discussing all sorts of topics, just because I dared to question some of the standard left-wing stances on trans issues. I'd said something like, I don't think claiming an identity is enough, there has to be some sort of dysphoria. And then followed up with another comment like, if they want to keep the cock intact, then they're not actually trans women, as…

What is your expertise in the field?

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

#792

Post by Levitz » Tue, Nov 19, 2024, 10:09 PM UTC

jorgeleo wrote: post #645

Levitz wrote: post #521

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But there is nothing about that. The point of the article is that SA can't sacrifice science to push propaganda. That's it. Like this point of yours: >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 Is true, for the article, no…

And my point is that: 1. Defending science as objective truth is not propaganda, so the editor did not engage un such. 2. The article it self is not about science, but it is weasel propaganda on it self because accusing of propaganda to the editor is a form of propaganda that is presented as "reasonable" but the intended effect is to try to call propaganda what is not.

I genuinely have no clue what you are talking about.

>1. Defending science as objective truth is not propaganda, so the editor did not engage un such.

A headline like "Why the Term 'JEDI' Is Problematic for Describing Programs That Promote Justice, Equity, Diversity and Inclusion." has absolutely, completely nothing to do with "defending science as objective truth". Within the article political views are pushed, with science being largely irrelevant to the case.

>2. The article it self is not about science, but it is weasel propaganda on it self because accusing of propaganda to the editor is a form of propaganda that is presented as "reasonable" but the intended effect is to try to call propaganda what is not.

The article does not attempt to be seen "about science" at any point. It's not weaseling at any point, it's point is made very clearly. It even makes the point that propaganda isn't necessarily wrong

Have you even read the article?

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

#793

Post by eezurr » Tue, Nov 19, 2024, 10:09 PM UTC

ToucanLoucan wrote: post #727

eezurr wrote: post #715

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since climate change is a very popular topic, so popular that a person's belief or non belief in it will cause people on the other side to strike them down without hesitation... There's power, community, and social acceptance to drive people. The downvotes to the above comment's parent comment prove my point.

That's completely correct and valid but also in order to see this as a problem one has to presume that that the belief in it, or anything else you might care to put in it's place, is itself flawed. I don't believe in climate change because it's beneficial or not beneficial: I have read numerous things on the subject, all of which paint a consistent, reproducible, and relatable-to-my-life situation which happens to be…

To the downvoters (and ToucanLoucan), I never claimed what I believed in, and you don't have enough information to know anything about it. I'll continue to neither confirm nor deny my stance, for the point Im making is IMO an important one. Can you walk away from this conversation with your eye opened to how your belief is driving you to strike? [0]

Here's a near-equivalent real world example: Alzheimer's research has been led in the wrong direction for decades, due to people chasing after power. [1]

[0] >And maybe that's wrong of me to assume, but also if you consistently find yourself on the same side of a debate as the worst people imaginable, maybe that's something you should sit with and figure out how you feel about it, and if it points to you possibly being skeptical about the wrong things.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliezer_Masliah

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

#794

Post by agentultra » Tue, Nov 19, 2024, 10:10 PM UTC

rurp wrote: post #751

agentultra wrote: post #713

I can't really speak to the author's credentials but they link to two of their own articles and seem to be sour that SciAm didn't publish their work under this out-going editor's direction. In general though, it seems like publications such as SciAm are under a lot of pressure in this political environment. Maybe more than ever. I'm sure they've no doubt faced criticism from scientists that wanted to publish climate-…

I feel like you missed a big chunk of the article. The author points out a number of cases where SciAm published outright false or misleading information, which always echoed progressive activist talking points. This has nothing to do with publishing climate denialism or other pseudoscience, it's about not publishing poor information just because it aligns with a particular world view. SciAm is hardly an isolated exa…

Turns out the author has no scientific credentials of any kind. They've been criticized for having an anti-trans bias in their writing [0].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Singal

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

#795

Post by tptacek » Tue, Nov 19, 2024, 10:10 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #778

tptacek wrote: post #665

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Her "parting rant" didn't appear in SciAm, a point even the article makes clear, but which you obscure here.

It’s probative of state of mind.

It would have been if you'd described it as such, rather than misleading about it (deliberately or not).

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

#796

Post by jkhdigital » Tue, Nov 19, 2024, 10:11 PM UTC

nataliste wrote: post #749

wizzwizz4 wrote: post #730

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you publish new evidence in favour of a popular theory, your paper gets published – sometimes in a prestigious journal. Whereas if you demonstrate compelling evidence overturning a high-profile scientific dogma of international import, you… *checks notes* win the Nobel Prize in Physics. Hm. Maybe the Nobel Committee is in on… no, that'd only affect whether they awarded the prize, not whether people expect them to.…

>If you publish new evidence in favour of a popular theory, your paper gets published – sometimes in a prestigious journal. Whereas if you demonstrate compelling evidence overturning a high-profile scientific dogma of international import, you… checks notes win the Nobel Prize in Physics. Hm. The last time a Nobel Prize was awarded to someone overturning a long-held charged dogma was in 2005 when Barry J. Marshall an…

Here, let me drop this mic for you

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

#797

Post by teekert » Tue, Nov 19, 2024, 10:15 PM UTC

tombert wrote: post #741

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…

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"…

Perhaps not disputed, but exercise’s effect is probably overestimated, and thus, damage was done. https://youtu.be/vSSkDos2hzo?si=3U2UxQOa_ZgdmT37

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

#798

Post by trinsic2 » Tue, Nov 19, 2024, 10:19 PM UTC

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #620

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…

> 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.

I think the problem with this idea is that thinking can be corrupted by emotional bias. Ideologies and power differentials(People with powerful incentives to control narratives) can have a lasting effect on perception, when you pair this with modern media, it can create a cascade effect that can drown out the truth. The psychology of group-think also plays a part in this as well. Its a very complicated topic and your conclusion is one small part of the puzzle.

There is this great YouTube [0] video that describes this problem perfectly in my book. They interviewed people with some data that was math based and what they found is people would skew there own thinking to support there own political ideologies. This can be used against the population to create perceptions that don't line up with facts.

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

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

#799

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Nov 19, 2024, 10:20 PM UTC

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #585

throwaway5752 wrote: post #492

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't "defuse" a wedge issue, you can only decline to be manipulated. That is an individual act. There is no "side" to a wedge issue, it is a false dichotomy crafted to create maximal division. They are focus group tested and refined to do so. The "War on Christmas" effects a greater sense of persecution while framing it as a nonexistent conflict. There is no War on Christmas. I can say Merry Christmas or not, an…

I agree with most of what you're saying except for the contention that the dichotomy is false. It's a good wedge issue precisely because it's a true dichotomy. Even when attempting to dismiss the debate as fabricated and pointless, you end up taking a side on accident, flatly stating that there's no War on Christmas and that it doesn't really matter whether you say Merry Christmas to others. On the other side of the…

[deleted]

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

#800

Post by csours » Tue, Nov 19, 2024, 10:20 PM UTC

jbstjohn wrote: post #779

csours wrote: post #640

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because I don't feel that the confederate battle flag is virtuous. Virtue signaling is done by people in every in-group; when it is done by people my in-group is fighting against Virtue Signaling does not feel like a virtue.

The thing is, it's not just loyalty, it's also a 'better than only mid-level believers in the cause'. There's definitely a purity / piety aspect. I do like "piety" as it captures the religious aspect.

I think that's a good addition. My main point is that it's not just one signal, and that 'virtue' carries too much emotional and moral freight. Maybe call them Signals of Virtues.