←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: 0.001s | source
Show context
henearkr ◴[19 Nov 24 18:26 UTC] No.42186615[source]▶
This whole debate is surrealist.

Bigotry and intolerance are fundamentally irrational and illogical, so the so-called "left-bias" of science is just science being itself.

Now the comments in this HN page and the reason.com article are completely ignoring that, and only considering everything through a political filter.

replies(3): >>42186632 #>>42187607 #>>42188246 #
TheBlight ◴[19 Nov 24 18:28 UTC] No.42186632[source]▶
Is "intolerance" objectively defined?
replies(1): >>42186677 #
henearkr ◴[19 Nov 24 18:33 UTC] No.42186677[source]▶
Easy enough: make matter things that have no reason to matter.

Like what the skin color has to do with how good your physician is? Nothing.

Science is smart enough to propose the adequate metrics, in this case it does absolutely not include melanin.

replies(4): >>42187694 #>>42187843 #>>42188205 #>>42188281 #
1. anglosaxony ◴[19 Nov 24 21:29 UTC] No.42188281[source]▶
Deciding "what matters" isn't a question of science, it is a question of dominance and self-interest. You seem intent on dominating others and denying their legitimate self-interests.
replies(1): >>42192019 #
2. henearkr ◴[20 Nov 24 09:02 UTC] No.42192019[source]▶
What matters is a matter of causality, which is inside the realm of science.