←back to thread

Scientific American's departing editor and the politicization of science

(reason.com)
473 points Bostonian | 6 comments | 18 Nov 24 22:04 UTC | HN request time: 0.907s | source | bottom
Show context
bithead ◴[19 Nov 24 15:34 UTC] No.42184605[source]▶
"In the process, SciAm played a small but important role in the self-immolation of scientific authority—a terrible event whose fallout we'll be living with for a long time."

Which is it - small or important? All that seems like a bit much.

replies(4): >>42184888 #>>42185572 #>>42186228 #>>42186561 #
vonneumannstan ◴[19 Nov 24 15:58 UTC] No.42184888[source]▶
For want of a nail the shoe was lost. For want of a shoe the horse was lost. For want of a horse the rider was lost. For want of a rider the message was lost. For want of a message the battle was lost. For want of a battle the kingdom was lost.

Was the nail small or important?

replies(5): >>42185078 #>>42185208 #>>42185249 #>>42185279 #>>42185398 #
iwontberude ◴[19 Nov 24 16:15 UTC] No.42185078[source]▶
Why does a person want a nail and then lose a shoe? Why does a person want a shoe and then lose a horse? Why does a person want a message but lose the rider? Why does a person want a message and lose the battle? Why does a person want a battle but lose the kingdom?

I don’t understand the point or reference being made.

replies(3): >>42185118 #>>42185132 #>>42185139 #
1. throwaway0123_5 ◴[19 Nov 24 16:19 UTC] No.42185118[source]▶
They're talking about a horseshoe on a horse which was being used to deliver an important message
replies(1): >>42185166 #
2. iwontberude ◴[19 Nov 24 16:22 UTC] No.42185166[source]▶
There are too many leaps of abstraction, which to me, proves the missing horseshoe nail is irrelevant in the big picture. Too many other things could have transpired positively for the kingdom in a space so expansive. It’s classic scapegoating. “Bro my controller totally didn’t work that time! We would’ve won the match otherwise I promise.”
replies(3): >>42185378 #>>42185792 #>>42186326 #
3. throwaway0123_5 ◴[19 Nov 24 16:40 UTC] No.42185378[source]▶
Tbh it seems entirely plausible to me that a messenger being unable to deliver an important message could have an outsized effect on that outcome of a battle. What if they're letting their side know about a surprise attack?
replies(1): >>42185698 #
4. alwa ◴[19 Nov 24 17:08 UTC] No.42185698{3}[source]▶
Seems also plausible that risks might apply to the messenger that wouldn’t apply to the troops in garrison—that is, the thousands of other horseshoe nails in inventory could have gone unmissed or doomed a less important horse.
5. vonneumannstan ◴[19 Nov 24 17:14 UTC] No.42185792[source]▶
It's an ancient proverb demonstrating early understanding of complex systems. Not an in depth philosophical argument.

However there are plenty of real life examples of a single small detail causing outsize impact. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Airlines_Flight_261

It's kind of absurd to think otherwise.

6. shadowgovt ◴[19 Nov 24 17:57 UTC] No.42186326[source]▶
A more robust treatment of risk factors in both ideas.

You want to ask whether the system needs to be tracking nail quality if the kingdom relies on nails that much. You also want to be asking why critical information is being sent by only one messenger.