Scientific American's departing editor and the politicization of science

Don't be mistaken, Science and politics are intertwined and have been for a long time. Talk to any lead scientist who has to secure funding for their project and they ll tell you how its all political. So I dont see a problem with science magazine editors taking a political stance.

The Right tends to harp on this purist view from time to time while ignoring their own house of glass. For them, it's ok for for example, WSJ to be a completely biased in one direction. They dont complain about skewed viewpoints then. They will also defend famous podcasters for providing a platform pseudo science people with agendas. But as soon as a science magazine editor takes a stand, they flip out.

SciAm is allowed to be wrong and is allowed to be opinionated as well. The Bro however pretends to ignore proven science in order to have "interesting conversations." The dissonance here is astounding.

Scientific American's challenge to certain political beliefs doesn't undermine its commitment to scientific awareness. I find their articles more informative than arbitrary podcasts. No one claims SciAM is the sole source of truth, but it's a valuable resource. You're free to ignore it, just as I ignore most podcasters. If you rely on Joe Rogan for science and claim it be truer than SciAm, there's little to discuss here.

It's like we're talking past each other.

SciAm and the media are held to a higher standard... by themselves. They claim a position of authority. So when they are biased or get something wrong, it's a problem because their brands have a halo of truth left over from olden days.

Joe Rogan doesn't claim a position of authority. So when he is biased or gets something wrong, it's just what's to be expected from a bro with a podcast.

Your assumption is that there exists an "apolitical truth" that science should aspire to. There isn't.

There are many truths that can be discovered through the scientific method. Those truths are inherently political (see elsewhere on this discussion about the truthful obesity research funded by Coca-Cola that focused on exercise rather than sugar intake)

The notion that there is no objective truth, that everything is a social construct, is intellectual poison.

Fundamental truths exist in physics and mathematics and other fields, completely orthogonal to politics.

People may have opinions about it, but it is what it is.

Anyway, I’m not talking about science at all. I’m talking about Scientific American and the broader media.

They claim impartiality; they wear a facade of objectivity; they sell themselves as neutral arbiters. But in reality they are apparatchiks.

Joe Rogan is popular not because he claims to be above it all or to be objective, but because there’s no facade at all.