Scientific American's departing editor and the politicization of science

I grew up believing that science was the search for truth and fact, and that it should be constantly challenged to further that. What has happened I think, is that there has been a great polarization of science as government and groups have used and twisted it to fit a political agenda. Which essentially stops that search for truth. Challenging scientific conclusions should be encouraged not cancelled.

> What has happened I think, is that there has been a great polarization of science as government and groups have used and twisted it to fit a political agenda.

Exactly. "In this house we believe ... science is real." is about the most unscientific sentiment possible. There, the word "science" exists to give the air of authority to a set of ideological and policy positions.

I always found that quote kind of funny. So the scientists who have views on political issues that are the extreme opposite of yours (because there are many such people)... what then exactly?

Your sentence has grammatical issues.

I assume you're implying that people who advocate for cultural support of science are hyper liberal and would be hostile to any science conducted by a hyper conservative. I reject this assertion.

"Trust the science" means that peer reviewed science and scientific consensus should carry weight, and too many people are anti-intellectual.

> I assume you're implying that people who [...]

Nope.