Scientific American's departing editor and the politicization of science

SciAm is allowed to be wrong and is allowed to be opinionated as well. The Bro however pretends to ignore proven science in order to have "interesting conversations." The dissonance here is astounding.

I think most of the Anti-Rogan sentiment is mostly people attributing things to him that he does not actually do or say.

People from the far left are so opposed to listening to him their opinion of him is almost completely formed by hearsay and taking small snippets of what he or his guests say out of context.

I fell victim to this. After the recent talk about just how important his show was in the election I listened to the Trump, Vance, and Fetterman interviews. His show is nowhere near as bad as the left says it is, and he is hardly "far right" just because he decided to endorse Trump this time.

Scientific American's challenge to certain political beliefs doesn't undermine its commitment to scientific awareness. I find their articles more informative than arbitrary podcasts. No one claims SciAM is the sole source of truth, but it's a valuable resource. You're free to ignore it, just as I ignore most podcasters. If you rely on Joe Rogan for science and claim it be truer than SciAm, there's little to discuss here.

I don't think people thought Rogan was far right because of his endorsement of Trump. People thought he was far right way before this.

It's like we're talking past each other.

SciAm and the media are held to a higher standard... by themselves. They claim a position of authority. So when they are biased or get something wrong, it's a problem because their brands have a halo of truth left over from olden days.

Joe Rogan doesn't claim a position of authority. So when he is biased or gets something wrong, it's just what's to be expected from a bro with a podcast.

SciAm is not really a journal. However, scientific publications like Nature and the Lancet have removed articles due to political ramifications.

I was an early fan from 2016-2018 (stopped listening as regularly after 2018 and dropped off entirely after 2020). I agree he is not far right

Rogan definitely shifted right during this time though. Enough so that I and many others close to me found it off putting to continue. A shame because I’ve never found a replacement show.

Calling him far right is incorrect, but I believe the criticism has always been about the people he platforms and not his views. Whether or not you agree with that critique is up to you

Your assumption is that there exists an "apolitical truth" that science should aspire to. There isn't.

There are many truths that can be discovered through the scientific method. Those truths are inherently political (see elsewhere on this discussion about the truthful obesity research funded by Coca-Cola that focused on exercise rather than sugar intake)

See also Limbaugh[0] et al on AM. IF you actually listen to their (not rogan) shows they follow the art bell and phil hendry style of broadcasting. Repeat something inflammatory, maybe add a bit of opinion, go to commercial, wait for the calls to come in, then let the callers go off. Their mechanism for entertainment is common man.

Rogan has uncommon men (afaik), NdgT, etc. I don't like long-form content in general so i catch clips and replays of sections but i don't care enough about long-form to ever listen. i don't have anything against the guy, personally.

[0] limbaugh was replaced by other people and i can't remember their names because i only listen to AM during the day when i am somewhere without cell coverage and i'm out of USB stick tunes - the last time was 2018 or so and maybe it was hannity or something? Also the word "repeat" as i used it was explicit in "repeating what someone else said" - not repeating to belabor. I could give examples, maybe. Further, Alex Jones isn't this type of broadcaster, either. He is outside the diagram i've already drawn between our comments.

> Your assumption is that there exists an "apolitical truth" that science should aspire to. There isn't.

You can definitely try present different theories on a given topic, citing different papers that defend different viewpoints. You can have a bias for one interpretation, I will not fault you for that. But if you pretend like you favorite interpretation is the settled science and anyone that disagrees is an idiot, then I think you failed at your job as a science publication.

The notion that there is no objective truth, that everything is a social construct, is intellectual poison.

Fundamental truths exist in physics and mathematics and other fields, completely orthogonal to politics.

People may have opinions about it, but it is what it is.

Anyway, I’m not talking about science at all. I’m talking about Scientific American and the broader media.

They claim impartiality; they wear a facade of objectivity; they sell themselves as neutral arbiters. But in reality they are apparatchiks.

Joe Rogan is popular not because he claims to be above it all or to be objective, but because there’s no facade at all.

Objective truth =/= Apolitical truth

What research gets funding, grant selection, grant applications, getting donations, creating a research group, what gets published, who gets award prizes... all of it is political. Same goes dor the negative space of what doesn't get researched and what truths don't get discovered (see laws blocking government money from gun violence research)

> They claim impartiality; they wear a facade of objectivity...

If they did claim impartiality, I don't think the editor would be continually spouting political hot takes on Twitter.

If SciAm is going to be opinionated like The Bro, then it has the same degree of intellectual authority (or lack thereof) as The Bro.