←back to thread

Scientific American's departing editor and the politicization of science

(reason.com)
490 points Bostonian | 4 comments | 18 Nov 24 22:04 UTC | HN request time: 0.87s | source
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. Swizec ◴[19 Nov 24 16:20 UTC] No.42185139[source]▶
“for want of” in this context means “because of not having” or “for lack of”

It’s an older way of writing English. But not like super old. Basically the kingdom was lost because of 1 missing nail.

replies(1): >>42185244 #
2. iwontberude ◴[19 Nov 24 16:28 UTC] No.42185244[source]▶
It’s so contrived and yet needs so many leaps of abstraction that I don’t think it makes its point well at all. “Bro my controller totally didn’t work that time! We would’ve won the match otherwise I promise.” Do you really think it was the controller that lost the match?
replies(1): >>42185550 #
3. jamessb ◴[19 Nov 24 16:55 UTC] No.42185550[source]▶
It is a well-known proverb that is centuries old [1]: it's essentially a canonical way of refering to the concept of something small having big consequences.

Proverbs are often contrived (e.g., "Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones" - who lives in a glass house?).

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_Want_of_a_Nail

replies(1): >>42189679 #
4. iwontberude ◴[20 Nov 24 00:42 UTC] No.42189679{3}[source]▶
I hate everything about this, thank you for sharing the context