←back to thread

Scientific American's departing editor and the politicization of science

(reason.com)
473 points Bostonian | 4 comments | 18 Nov 24 22:04 UTC | HN request time: 0.851s | source
Show context
devindotcom ◴[19 Nov 24 00:59 UTC] No.42179087[source]▶
Every piece called out here is clearly labeled "opinion" - did they even read the normal news and analysis sections? Countless newspapers and outlets and actual scientific journals have opinion/editorial sections that are generally very well firewalled from the factual content. You could collect the worst hot takes from a few years of nearly any site with a dedicated opinion page and pretend that it has gone downhill. But that this the whole point of having a separate opinion section — so opinions have a place to go, and are not slipped into factual reporting. And many opinion pieces are submitted by others or solicited as a way to show a view that the newsroom doesn't or can't espouse.

Whether the EIC of SciAm overstepped with her own editorializing is probably not something we as outsiders can really say, given the complexities of running a newsroom. I would caution people against taking this superficial judgment too seriously.

replies(15): >>42179132 #>>42179166 #>>42179285 #>>42179346 #>>42179613 #>>42180939 #>>42181377 #>>42181626 #>>42181975 #>>42182171 #>>42182356 #>>42182383 #>>42182536 #>>42183012 #>>42183062 #
46307484 ◴[19 Nov 24 10:38 UTC] No.42181975[source]▶
Why do opinions need a place to go? Why can't we just demonize professionals who lack the ability to report factual content without mixing in their opinions as unfit to be writing?
replies(3): >>42182118 #>>42182210 #>>42182337 #
resource_waste ◴[19 Nov 24 10:59 UTC] No.42182118[source]▶
When I was in my 20s, I believed you.

Now that I'm in my 30s, I think we need a nanny police state making sure everyone is rational.

replies(3): >>42182196 #>>42182581 #>>42182589 #
rayiner[dead post] ◴[19 Nov 24 12:13 UTC] No.42182589[source]▶
[flagged]
tptacek ◴[19 Nov 24 19:52 UTC] No.42187401[source]▶
Her "parting rant" didn't appear in SciAm, a point even the article makes clear, but which you obscure here.
replies(1): >>42188532 #
rayiner ◴[19 Nov 24 21:56 UTC] No.42188532[source]▶
It’s probative of state of mind.
replies(1): >>42188644 #
1. tptacek ◴[19 Nov 24 22:10 UTC] No.42188644[source]▶
It would have been if you'd described it as such, rather than misleading about it (deliberately or not).
replies(1): >>42189994 #
2. rayiner ◴[20 Nov 24 01:35 UTC] No.42189994[source]▶
The context of the rant is clear in the article we all presumptively read.
replies(1): >>42190099 #
3. tptacek ◴[20 Nov 24 01:51 UTC] No.42190099[source]▶
As I just said, the article itself contradicts the claim you made here. At some length.
replies(1): >>42193681 #
4. rayiner ◴[20 Nov 24 13:16 UTC] No.42193681{3}[source]▶
How could the article “contradict” my statement when I didn’t say anything about where the rant appeared? I didn’t reproduce the content of the rant either. The article provided both the content and context of her parting rant; my post simply referred back to it.

You seem to be assuming my point somehow turns on Helmuth’a statements appearing in SciAm. It does not. Her words are ipso facto indicative of religious and moral fervor, not rationality.