←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: 0.001s | source
Show context
alistairSH ◴[19 Nov 24 14:33 UTC] No.42183843[source]▶
Does the author not understand the concept of "opinion piece"? Every "article" he takes issue with is NOT a scientific article, but an opinion piece.
replies(10): >>42183882 #>>42183968 #>>42184036 #>>42184071 #>>42184124 #>>42184194 #>>42184196 #>>42184198 #>>42184592 #>>42184655 #
someuser2345 ◴[19 Nov 24 15:07 UTC] No.42184198[source]▶
Scientific American isn't a social media platform; by publishing these opinion pieces, they implicitly support them. Would you be ok if they published an opinion piece bashing evolution and defending creationism?
replies(5): >>42184381 #>>42184643 #>>42186426 #>>42186512 #>>42186851 #
1. unethical_ban ◴[19 Nov 24 18:52 UTC] No.42186851[source]▶
So?

Should it be impossible to have a rigorous scientific method for reporting and peer review in the news section, while advocating for certain actions or perspectives in the opinion page?

If someone sends me a Wall Street Journal news article that reports on facts, I can trust it, even if their opinion page is intellectually bankrupt.