I agree with those who say that science should stay out of politics as much as possible. But this is just one of many indications that Scientific American is sliding rapidly downhill and no longer qualifies as a real science magazine.
I agree with those who say that science should stay out of politics as much as possible. But this is just one of many indications that Scientific American is sliding rapidly downhill and no longer qualifies as a real science magazine.
12 comments :
I agree. It's been a long time since I looked at Scientific American, but it was obvious 20 years ago that it had already fallen a long way from the magazine I admired in the 1960s.
Is that true? Jesus Christ. Fuck Scientific American.
No, they should not.
-César
Yes, when the candidates have radically different positions on science policy. I think we have such a situation now. And the expressed reasons for endorsement should be limited to said science policy. SciAm sucks, but that's not one of the reasons.
Yep. It's not a hard thing when one candidate purposes elevating RFK Jr. to the Health Secretary position.
I have to disagree with this.
Firstly, let's make it clear that 'Scientific American' is a popsci journal. So, I think them endorsing a political candidate hardly qualifies as "Science stepping into politics".
But more importantly, I find this sentiment infuriating: "Science should stay out of politics as much as possible". Really??! Is that what you would've told the scientists who were going to testify in the Dover trial 2005, like Kenneth Miller?! Is that what you would've told James Hansen before he went to testify in Congress in 1988 to raise awareness of climate change? Of course you wouldn't (or I hope so). Also bear in mind that the Discovery Institute is part of the advisory board of Project 2025. If Trump wins, and Project 2025 is enacted, it's going to be a disaster. I wouldn't be surprised to see a repeat of the Dover trial, but we could very well lose the next big court case because of a Trump appointed judge.
Okay... there is the ambiguous "as much as possible" qualifier, so perhaps there are exceptions to this. So, under what circumstances should scientists remain silent in politics? I am not seeing any clarification on that question here. I am trying to read the Atlantic article, but it is pay-walled. The only reason I can see that was provided is this: "The magazine’s endorsement of a candidate undermines trust in expertise." I don't agree with this either. Scientists who speak out are not the source of distrust. In fact, I would argue that the exact opposite is true. What undermines trust in science are pundits spouting nonsense on the news and social media 24/7 and the lack of push-back from experts.
"But wait!" you say... "What if a scientist goes public and starts to speak against pundits or a politician, wouldn't that give the people the idea that scientists are politically biased??" Well, speaking out is not without risks of course. But regarding distrust, I don't think it really make a difference. The very same pundits who constantly spread anti-science nonsense are ALREADY instilling distrust in the public.
"Science, academia and universities all have been taken over by [woke socialist leftists / materialistic atheists / cultural Marxists / critical race theorists] who want to [undermine captialism / ban God and the bible in schools / make everyone trans and gay / destroy white people with guilt]"
That's what people are constantly hearing right now. Would scientists who go on the news and say that Trump is scientifically illiterate really going to make people more distrustful? I don't think so. Scientists who speak out aren't he ones "politicizing science". That's already happening! More importantly, would holding your head low in silence lead to a better situation? DEFINITELY NOT!!
The idea that scientists should just... "stay out of politics"... may be well-meaning, but it is very dangerous. This is precisely what the anti-science ideologues want. Aside from a scientist who agrees with them, a perfect scientist in their eyes is one who does not 'hear, see, nor speak'. One that is completely invisible to voters. Using the sentiment that a "proper scientists should stay out of politics" is honestly a brilliant move on their part. It dresses itself up as a call for political neutrality. Yet, it's just a way to guilt-trip scientists into making them shut up for the benefit of those in power.
@Nesslig20 OK, maybe I should have been more clear by what I meant by "politics." I have no problem with scientists and science journals taking positions on policies. I'm not the least bit upset about scientists who attack creationists.
What I meant was that science organizations and science magazines should avoid taking sides in political contests by endorsing one candidate, or one party, over another. I don't see any reason why I should trust the editors of a science magazine to recommend who I vote for any more than I should trust a TV network, an entertainment personality, or a superstar athlete.
The top three requirements of good science journalism are accuracy, accuracy, and accuracy. All science magazines should strive to produce accurate articles to inform the general public about science. They lose credibility when they venture outside of their area of expertise (science) in order to help elect a particular politician.
hard disagree, given the context
@Larry_Moran I am puzzled by the implication that you previously did not consider those things as 'politics'. It's rather startling. Sorry for being blunt again. If you think that defending science does not (have to) involve politics, then you're being played.
I also have a problem with the idea that scientists (or science magazines) should not endorse any political candidate for the same reasons I outlined earlier. Furthermore, what good would 'attacking creationist' do if the Trump administration directly or indirectly enacted a "teach the controversy" mandate? What good is arguing for policies to solve a major environmental crisis when our leaders don't believe the problem is even real? If you think that dunking on creationists, arguing for policies, or just putting the facts out there is enough to win... again... you're being played.
Regarding the top three rules, I have read the article in question. To me, they are accurate on every point. I don't think you would disagree with that. Alright, so accuracy may not matter. They are still "stepping outside their area of expertise" when endorsing a candidate? Alright then... isn't taking positions on policies (which you are fine with) also stepping outside of science? Oh wait... if the nature of the policy relates to science and scientists are able to provide informed opinions on the matter... okay then. So... regarding the position of the most powerful world leader, what if one candidate accepts basic scientific facts, while the other is in outright denial of them?! AND the fact that close associates of the latter candidate includes an extensive network of think tanks filled with anti-science ideologues, who have been explicit in their goal to dismantle science (see the Wedge document). I would argue, especially in this case with such a stark difference, that endorsing the former candidate is just as (arguably even more) relevant to science as endorsing a science related policy.
Then there is this:
"I don't see any reason why I should trust the editors of a science magazine to recommend who I vote for any more than I should trust a TV network, an entertainment personality, or a superstar athlete."
Now it seems to me that your problem is not with scientists nor editors of a science magazine specifically. You just don't want to see anyone endorsing a candidate. The "don't-tell-me-what-to-do" attitude (i.e. psychological reactance). I could be completely wrong about this inference. It's just that this would explain a lot. For example, why you're okay with scientists endorsing a policy while previously stating that they should "stay out of politics" when it comes to candidate endorsement. The policy isn't a direct call of action on your part. At least, this doesn't feel personal. However, the endorsement of a candidate does. They are asking for your vote. I suspect that is what is really going on here. Again, I could be very well be wrong on this part. I am just trying to understand what is happening here.
When the journals endorse a candidate it undermines trust in the journal(and by extension, the scientific enterprise) by people who like the other candidate.
It shouldn't be like this, and we would all like to believe that scientists (and journal editors) can compartmentalize their personal political beliefs and not let it influence the science they do and the review process. However, people simply don't believe that. Many people now believe science organizations are politically biased to the point where they are just mouth-pieces for certain viewpoints. I don't see a way out of this other than having the institutions declare their neutrality.
Endorsing candidates certainly does nothing to dispel the perception of bias, even if we can know rationally that it shouldn't in principle influence the science they do.
I agree with John Harshman and will gently disagree with Mikkel. One candidate has driven at least many tens of millions of Americans away from a scientific way of knowing (in fact away from a desire to understand reality), to the extent that it has caused hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths. Opposing such a candidate's accession to the Presidency is to defend science itself.
It is because of this active disdain for science and reality that I don't agree this will undermine trust. There is no trust to undermine. There is active hostility, or has anyone not seen the Congressmen and Senators blaming Dr. Fauci for the pandemic, and the many social media posts calling for his execution?
Trying to keep America from falling into Lysenkoism (and I don't speak only of evolutionary theory, but of scientists fearing to proceed with their work lest their government punish them) is something that scientists and publications about science - in fact anyone who wants to see scientists remain at least somewhat free to explore reality - ought to be engaged in right now.
Post a Comment