←back to thread

Scientific American's departing editor and the politicization of science

(reason.com)
473 points Bostonian | 1 comments | 18 Nov 24 22:04 UTC | HN request time: 0.221s | source
Show context
alistairSH ◴[19 Nov 24 14:33 UTC] No.42183843[source]▶
Does the author not understand the concept of "opinion piece"? Every "article" he takes issue with is NOT a scientific article, but an opinion piece.
replies(10): >>42183882 #>>42183968 #>>42184036 #>>42184071 #>>42184124 #>>42184194 #>>42184196 #>>42184198 #>>42184592 #>>42184655 #
Cpoll ◴[19 Nov 24 14:54 UTC] No.42184071[source]▶
In a different context, HN tends to have the same feelings about Scientific American, see: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29741171

I think there's an argument to be made that Scientific American shouldn't have opinion pieces that readers will misinterpret as scientific fact.

replies(1): >>42184715 #
1. crackercrews ◴[19 Nov 24 15:43 UTC] No.42184715[source]▶
Especially when some other outlet reports "Scientific American says XYZ". Readers will absolutely treat this as if there are scientific underpinnings. They will give it more credence than a regular opinion piece. The vast majority of them will never know it was even an opinion piece in the first place.

I would guess that if you asked 100 random people who had heard of Scientific American, many/most would say that SA publishes science and has no Opinion section. Before this dustup, I would have been in that camp.