←back to thread

Scientific American's departing editor and the politicization of science

(reason.com)
473 points Bostonian | 5 comments | 18 Nov 24 22:04 UTC | HN request time: 0s | 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 #
defrost ◴[19 Nov 24 01:09 UTC] No.42179132[source]▶
The linked article itself is an opinion piece.

Reason does interesting stuff, sure, but no mistake it has a bias and that is a right centre libertarian view that loads factual content toward a predetermined conconclusion that individual free thinkers trump all.

As such they take part in a current conservative habit of demonising "Science" to undermine results that bear on, say, environmental health, climate change, on so on that might result in slowing down a libertarian vision of industry.

I still read their copy, I'm a broad ingestor of content, but no one should be blind to their lean either.

replies(2): >>42179458 #>>42179511 #
karaterobot ◴[19 Nov 24 02:18 UTC] No.42179511[source]▶
Are you saying the linked is meant to demonize science? The impression I got was that he was doing the exact opposite: saying that SciAm's editorial direction was harming the public perception of science, which could have far-reaching effects. I don't see that as an anti-science stance.
replies(3): >>42179616 #>>42179983 #>>42181301 #
gopher_space ◴[19 Nov 24 02:40 UTC] No.42179616[source]▶
The author's little trans tirade is a great example, and you can start with his "I'm something of a medical expert" line. Pure ideology.
replies(1): >>42179775 #
mitthrowaway2 ◴[19 Nov 24 03:12 UTC] No.42179775[source]▶
I can't find where the author writes "I'm something of a medical expert". But for myself, I'm not up to date on the research. Does this article misrepresent the current state of scientific understanding?
replies(4): >>42179893 #>>42182518 #>>42184648 #>>42184975 #
crote ◴[19 Nov 24 12:02 UTC] No.42182518[source]▶
Yes, it absolutely does.

The Cass Review mentioned was composed by a group of authors who are well-known to be opposed to trans healthcare, its methodology and conclusions are heavily criticized by subject experts (basically, "there is no evidence if you ignore all the evidence"), and even Cass herself has stated after publication that it is flawed. It does not represent the current scientific understanding of trans healthcare, so criticizing SciAm and even calling it "dangerous" for pointing this out is rather dubious.

The Cass Review was written primarily for political reasons. It isn't a peer-reviewed article written by neutral subject experts, and it should not be treated as such. The fact that Reason treats it as ground truth and ignores all the subject experts opposing it should say enough about their view on science.

replies(2): >>42182855 #>>42184654 #
SpicyLemonZest ◴[19 Nov 24 15:38 UTC] No.42184654[source]▶
I don't think what you're saying is true. I'm unaware of any indication that Hilary Cass for example is opposed to trans healthcare, and indeed she's explicitly stated that she agrees some young people benefit from it.
replies(1): >>42184967 #
VikingCoder ◴[19 Nov 24 16:05 UTC] No.42184967[source]▶
Video with references talking about Cass.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zI57lFn_vWk

replies(2): >>42185604 #>>42186916 #
sso_eol[dead post] ◴[19 Nov 24 17:01 UTC] No.42185604[source]▶
[flagged]
VikingCoder ◴[19 Nov 24 19:54 UTC] No.42187414[source]▶
Nice ad hominem attack.

If you prefer reading (and again, references), here ya go:

https://www.patreon.com/posts/106206585

That provides lots of valuable context that Cass ignores, such as from organizations like The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, and every other major medical organization in the US.

replies(1): >>42187782 #
sso_eol ◴[19 Nov 24 20:30 UTC] No.42187782[source]▶
I've skimmed the video previously but thanks for the transcript. It just confirms that her message is basically that she doesn't understand it, couldn't be bothered to read it and think about it herself, so here are some people who disagree with it. Plus the usual ranting about transphobes, i.e. people who disagree with her beliefs.

She even acknowledges that she waited to be told what to think about it. Yet she still styles herself as a "skeptic". Ridiculous, but quite amusing.

replies(1): >>42188431 #
VikingCoder ◴[19 Nov 24 21:45 UTC] No.42188431[source]▶
"so here are some people"?

That's how you describe the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, and every other major medical organization in the US?

If you're not convinced by the preponderance of peer-reviewed evidence, then I don't know how to help you make good decisions in life.

Maybe talk to some of your trans friends about their life experiences?

replies(1): >>42189285 #
1. sso_eol ◴[19 Nov 24 23:43 UTC] No.42189285[source]▶
Well, if she'd bothered to read Chapter 9 of the Review then she might have had some inkling as to why deferring to the AMA and the AAP isn't such a great idea. Fortunately, the researchers commissioned by the Cass Review took a genuinely skeptical approach to assessing other medical organizations' treatment guidelines, unlike the author of this video.

Also maybe you should read it yourself instead of relying on videos like this to misinform your opinions.

replies(1): >>42189926 #
2. VikingCoder ◴[20 Nov 24 01:23 UTC] No.42189926[source]▶
She said she read the Review. You're not arguing in good faith. Throughout our entire discussion.

And tell me what basis I should judge their excluding other research? How do I know they're not just rationalizing it? That they disagreed with the conclusions and worked backwards to exclude the sources?

It comes down to trust, and frankly, you're making me less likely to trust it, with the way you've communicated. I shouldn't blame them for how people talk about them, but you're certainly not doing them any favors.

If you genuinely want to be more persuasive, I'd be glad to walk you through the list of mistakes I think you made.

Also, I won't ask you to come to your own conclusions, but feel free to read this:

https://law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/documents/integrity...

replies(1): >>42193567 #
3. sso_eol ◴[20 Nov 24 13:01 UTC] No.42193567[source]▶
Here's what she actually said:

> Also, not for nothing but this thing is 388 pages. I do not have the attention span to be sure I wasn't missing something. So I cooled my heels and waited for the people who do have that expertise to weigh in.

She clearly did not do any sort of deep reading of the Review herself but instead just parroted what people who already ideologically agree with her have to say about it.

If she had read it herself, maybe she could have attempted a skeptical analysis. But she didn't.

Thanks for the link to that article by McNamara et al. I've already previously seen it and I would recommend you also read this peer-reviewed paper published in the British Medical Journal, which carefully eviscerates its claims: https://adc.bmj.com/content/early/2024/10/15/archdischild-20...

replies(1): >>42194262 #
4. VikingCoder ◴[20 Nov 24 14:39 UTC] No.42194262{3}[source]▶
Thanks for that link.

But again, you are not arguing in good faith, and it severely weakens your arguments. If you wish to convince people, please make a stronger attempt to stick to the facts.

You've repeatedly claimed, without evidence, that she did not even read the paper.

"If she had read it herself, maybe she could have attempted a skeptical analysis. But she didn't."

Quoting her, "So then I read the report myself."

Your obstinance on this point is remarkably fruitless. Feel free to argue that she didn't understand it, especially if you can point to statements she made that you can claim are false - and especially if you can cite references that prove your point.

I'll also note you didn't respond at all when I suggested you should ask your trans friends what they think.

At this point, we're done. I've made repeated attempts to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you have demonstrated your unwillingness to change.

replies(1): >>42195944 #
5. sso_eol ◴[20 Nov 24 17:03 UTC] No.42195944{4}[source]▶
You're nitpicking over the connotation of "read" and missing the broader point that she is by her own admission just parroting the critiques of others without much thought.

> At this point, we're done. I've made repeated attempts to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you have demonstrated your unwillingness to change.

That's fine. To be honest, your condescending attitude was starting to irritate me so I'm pleased not to proceed with this discussion any further.