←back to thread

Scientific American's departing editor and the politicization of science

(reason.com)
473 points Bostonian | 2 comments | 18 Nov 24 22:04 UTC | HN request time: 0.719s | source
Show context
refurb ◴[19 Nov 24 00:14 UTC] No.42178748[source]▶
Yikes, quite the scathing article and example of a the politicization of science.

“Trust the science” has always bothered me for two reasons: 1) science is frequently not black and white and anyone who has done hard science research knows there are plenty of competing opinions among scientists and 2) while scientific facts are facts, we still need to decide on how to act on those facts and that decision making process is most certainly political and subjective in nature.

replies(9): >>42178808 #>>42178829 #>>42179047 #>>42180264 #>>42181213 #>>42184764 #>>42185557 #>>42187092 #>>42187543 #
senderista ◴[19 Nov 24 00:20 UTC] No.42178808[source]▶
"Trust the science" is the very antithesis of the scientific spirit. The essence of science is to distrust authority and received wisdom. If you treat scientists as some sort of infallible priesthood then you've missed the whole point of science.
replies(8): >>42178888 #>>42179026 #>>42179084 #>>42179380 #>>42181629 #>>42186270 #>>42188141 #>>42200067 #
yks ◴[19 Nov 24 00:30 UTC] No.42178888[source]▶
> The essence of science is to distrust authority and received wisdom.

This is not "the essence of science" by any means.

replies(3): >>42179068 #>>42179079 #>>42179151 #
elevatedastalt ◴[19 Nov 24 01:11 UTC] No.42179151[source]▶
The Scientific process does not have any authority except observed natural phenomena.
replies(2): >>42179981 #>>42181239 #
cryptonector ◴[19 Nov 24 08:43 UTC] No.42181239[source]▶
The scientific method has no authorities, but science does.
replies(1): >>42185848 #
1. mrguyorama ◴[19 Nov 24 17:18 UTC] No.42185848[source]▶
It literally doesn't. Even Nobel Prize winners do not get a free pass to make baseless claims.

There's an entire realm of people who did great science, won a Nobel prize, and then went on to make absurd unfounded claims about shit they do not know.

replies(1): >>42191378 #
2. cryptonector ◴[20 Nov 24 06:53 UTC] No.42191378[source]▶
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_principle

Why do you suppose he said that? Do you really think it's different now? It's not.