←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: 0.305s | 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 #
1. EasyMark ◴[19 Nov 24 16:28 UTC] No.42185249[source]▶
It was a data point not a horse shoe in a critical chain of events. I think people will get a taste of promoting “alternative facts”when it comes to the current “let’s hit the reset button” crowd. then they will regret it and maybe reassess “alternative facts” like government grand schemes to create autism with vaccines and “make America fat” like are being touted. Most Americans need to only look in the mirror to see the source of their life’s problems.