←back to thread

Scientific American's departing editor and the politicization of science

(reason.com)
473 points Bostonian | 3 comments | 18 Nov 24 22:04 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
tlogan ◴[19 Nov 24 13:33 UTC] No.42183230[source]▶
The issue isn’t that Scientific American leans “pro-Democrat” and it is political. It always has, and that’s understandable.

The real problem is that the modern Democratic Party increasingly aligns with postmodernism, which is inherently anti-science (Postmodernism challenges the objectivity and universality of scientific knowledge, framing it as a social construct shaped by culture, power, and historical context, rather than an evidence-based pursuit of truth).

replies(13): >>42183266 #>>42183318 #>>42183333 #>>42183377 #>>42183402 #>>42183412 #>>42183417 #>>42183454 #>>42183640 #>>42183959 #>>42184074 #>>42184903 #>>42186543 #
felixgallo ◴[19 Nov 24 13:42 UTC] No.42183318[source]▶
What in the holy hell are you talking about? Are you really saying But it’s the Democrats that reject science and reason?
replies(5): >>42183367 #>>42183414 #>>42183433 #>>42183574 #>>42184882 #
1. smaudet ◴[19 Nov 24 13:47 UTC] No.42183367[source]▶
Filter bubbles are real. If you spend your time watching (low quality) videos with a bent (anti-feminist/transgender, e.g.) you begin to believe that is the majority discourse.

Its similar to homophobia - a small (tiny) portion of the population expresses "nominal" preference towards homosexuality, however, there is an outsized fear among those who feel threatened by the concept...

replies(1): >>42187424 #
2. 331c8c71 ◴[19 Nov 24 19:55 UTC] No.42187424[source]▶
Well your argument holds all the same should you replace "anti-" with "pro-" etc.
replies(1): >>42190398 #
3. smaudet ◴[20 Nov 24 02:45 UTC] No.42190398[source]▶
As it should. Those were examples, point was repeated exposure to something doesn't make it more true, just makes you more brainwashed.