Live data from Hacker News

Scientific American's departing editor and the politicization of science

reason.com

901–910 of 1001 posts

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

#901

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

A big part of the problem here is that the term "conspiracy" has multiple meanings. Here's the dictionary definition: > An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act. This means that for there to be a conspiracy, the conspirators have to communicate with each other about it. Many people would read your post and conclude that you think that there's a centralized organization that all the jou…

I think you're right about this. The appearance of conspiracy can easily occur among people who aren't covertly communicating with each other when they have aligned values and incentives.

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

#902

Earlier quoted context omitted.

White supremacy and other kinds of racisms. Non-whites can be racist too, you know? I feel like I'm wasting my time. What do you want to convince me of? That disbelief in evolution is not correlated to white supremacy? What a weird hill to die on. Minds infected with weird ideas tend to believe in multiple ones at the same time, it's not hard to accept.

>Minds infected with weird ideas tend to believe in multiple ones at the same time, it's not hard to accept. Irony thy name is thrance.

It's the name of a character in a book, it's got nothing to do with it. I'm cis.

You're insane, I gave you a giant study that proves my point, and you engage in baseless attack to refuse the outcome, are you a white supremacist?

I could also give you a meta-study that proves transition is the only real cure to gender dysphoria, but I'm afraid you're too far gone. Come back when you have decided to live in reality.

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

#903

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does your daughter play competitive sports? Has she been knocked down by a boy playing on a girl’s team?

Amusingly, in my experience, it was the girls in coed soccer that were doing the knocking down. For a few seasons, they were bigger than the boys, and they could more easily use their hips to check people off the ball without drawing fouls.

True, girls hit puberty first and for a few years outperformed boys in athletics. That was my personal experience in a coed sport.

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

#904

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Lots of individuals denounced the system, but you didn't hear from them because they didn't meet the demands of the entirely-manufactured scientific "consensus" on the wet market theory. As it turns out, that "consensus" was almost entirely driven by Anthony Fauci's camp of virologists (it's not just him, but a relatively small group of people who have a monetary/career interest in continuing the type of research tha…

If you're going to name one person, it definitely should not be Fauci, it should be Peter Daszak and his Ecohealth Alliance.

For the curious reader, here's a short introduction, the tip of the iceberg.

> Daszak’s $3.7 million NIH grant first set off alarm bells in early May 2016, as it entered its third year. The NIH requires annual progress reports, but Daszak’s year-two report was late and the agency threatened to withhold funds until he filed it.

> The report he finally did submit worried the agency’s grant specialists. It stated that scientists planned to create an infectious clone of Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS), a novel coronavirus found in dromedaries that had emerged in Saudi Arabia in 2012 and killed 35% of the humans it infected. The report also made clear that the NIH grant had already been used to construct two chimeric coronaviruses similar to the one that caused Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), which emerged in 2002 and went on to cause at least 774 deaths worldwide. (A chimeric virus is one that combines fragments of different viruses.) These revelations prompted the NIH’s grant specialists to ask a critical question: Should the work be subject to a federal moratorium on what was called gain-of-function research?

> But the 2015 research paper he cited was not particularly reassuring. In it, Shi Zhengli and a preeminent coronavirus researcher at the University of North Carolina, Ralph Baric, mixed components of SARS-like viruses from different species, and created a novel chimera that was able to directly infect human cells. (Baric did not respond to written questions seeking comment.)

> If anything, the MERS study Daszak proposed was even riskier. So he pitched a compromise to the NIH: that if any of the recombined strains showed 10 times greater growth than a natural virus, “we will immediately: i) stop all experiments with the mutant, ii) inform our NIAID Program Officer and the UNC [Institutional Biosafety Committee] of these results and iii) participate in decision making trees to decide appropriate paths forward.”

> This mention of UNC brought a puzzled response from an NIH program officer, who pointed out that the proposal had said the research would be performed at the WIV. “Can you clarify where the work with the chimeric viruses will actually be performed?” the officer wrote. Ten days later, with still no response from Daszak, the program officer emailed him again. On June 27, Daszak responded, buoyant as ever:

> “You are correct to identify a mistake in our letter. UNC has no oversight of the chimera work, all of which will be conducted at the Wuhan Institute of Virology…. We will clarify tonight with Prof. Zhengli Shi exactly who will be notified if we see enhanced replication…my understanding is that I will be notified straight away, as [principal investigator], and that I can then notify you at NIAID. Apologies for the error!”

> Allowing such risky research to go forward at the Wuhan Institute of Virology was “simply crazy, in my opinion,” says Jack Nunberg, director of the Montana Biotechnology Center. “Reasons are lack of oversight, lack of regulation, the environment in China,” where scientists who publish in prestigious journals get rewarded by the government, creating dangerous incentives. “So that is what really elevates it to the realm of, ‘No, this shouldn’t happen.’”

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

#905

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, arctic sea ice. Ice exists at temperature below 0C or 32F at 1atm AND at system energy levels below the enthalpy of melting for liquid water, or latent heat for this first order phase change. Thermodynamics uses temperature and pressure to explain system energy of molecules for liquid vapor solid phase systems. Latent heat is the esoteric part of this phenomenon because it requires a scientific education to under…

you mean the sea ice, that had the highest extent in 20 years this year? Or a different sea ice, perhaps the one they always trot out around January? you know, when it's summer in the southern hemisphere? The sea ice data isn't 1:1 with the seasons, so "data scientists" and "climate scientists" pick the cutoff date that makes the best headline. Even this year they were saying the ice was lower than average, but they…

[deleted]

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

#906

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you mean the sea ice, that had the highest extent in 20 years this year? Your link says it's "the seventh highest recorded since 2006 when this metric from IMS was first tracked consistently". Where are you getting "highest extent in 20 years"?

[flagged]

You're looking at data for confirmation of your bias. Sea Ice volume has been pretty steadily decreasing even as the coverage can increase.

https://www.polarportal.dk/en/sea-ice-and-icebergs/sea-ice-t...

All I can conclude from your posts in this thread is that you are in an unfortunate bubble, are desperately trying not to see reality, or simply want others to doubt it for whatever reason.

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

#907

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you read the whole paragraph, it's obvious what the writer intended to convey: that health research often assumes that there is one average, representative person, and everybody else is clustered around that person in a normal distribution. The author asserts that this is wrong, because people are dissimilar in more complex ways, and instead often fall into different clusters, rather than one bell curve. In my opi…

If they are science communicators and they are writing things that can be explained reasonably easily in such confusing and weird ways, shouldn't they be fired?

I don't believe the author of the article is employed by Scientific American. She just wrote an opinion piece for them.

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

#908

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

You're looking at data for confirmation of your bias. Sea Ice volume has been pretty steadily decreasing even as the coverage can increase. https://www.polarportal.dk/en/sea-ice-and-icebergs/sea-ice-t... All I can conclude from your posts in this thread is that you are in an unfortunate bubble, are desperately trying not to see reality, or simply want others to doubt it for whatever reason.

ok https://www.polarportal.dk/fileadmin/polarportal/sea/SICE_cu...

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

#909

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.

I want to live my way outside of superficial constructs like gender. I do not want to be forced to accommodate people who think that gender identity is something relevant. The current political climate sucks for agender people.

There is a thing I've noticed.

Some percentage of people do not strongly identify with any particular gender. I was assigned male at birth, I look stereotypically male, everyone assume I'm male and addresses me as such, but honestly, I don't care one way or the other and if I was female instead I doubt I would care. Let's say 50% fall here.

Another group of people strongly identified with one gender or the other, and can't imagine it being any other way. These people care deeply about gender because it is an important part of their identity. Let's say the other 50% fall here. Most of them are happy because they present as the gender they feel they are, and everyone treats them as such. In a small percentage, there is a mismatch and it makes their life hell.

I suspect the typical mind fallacy makes it very hard for most people to understand those that fall into the other group. And for those that are in the "happy with their gender" group to understand those in the "unhappy with their gender" group.

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

#910
post #882

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here you said it: "useful". The meaning of the word "useful" is a philosophical/political consideration.

"useful" should be replaced with "interesting" because we never know what will turn out to be useful, but by definition, we only look for things that interest us. And I disagree that's a philosophical or political consideration in most cases. It may be in some institutions, but I am sure most scientists will circumvent any restrictions imposed by their institutions in order to actually study what they themselves find…

>> I am sure most scientists will circumvent any restrictions imposed by their institutions in order to actually study what they themselves find interesting

All I can say is (-‸ლ)

Post reply on HN