←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: 0.427s | source
Show context
nyeah ◴[19 Nov 24 16:00 UTC] No.42184916[source]▶
The Reason article blurs the distinction between SciAm's opinion pieces and its factual (or putatively factual) reporting. That's disconcerting. "Opinion piece" objectively means "free bullshit zone". Reason is usually much more responsible than this.

SciAm has of course fallen into terrible disrepair. But that happened long ago and the cause wasn't BS in the editorials. Who even reads editorials in a science magazine?

I was a Young Libertarian in my day and I recognize the urge to blame lunatics who disagree with my politics for everything wrong in the world. But this particular case isn't convincing. It died and then the loonies moved in, not the other way around.

replies(7): >>42184966 #>>42186009 #>>42186071 #>>42186342 #>>42186445 #>>42186446 #>>42186596 #
23B1 ◴[19 Nov 24 16:04 UTC] No.42184966[source]▶
> The Reason article blurs the distinction between SciAm's opinion pieces and its factual (or putatively factual) reporting.

How are readers to know the difference?

replies(1): >>42184993 #
nyeah ◴[19 Nov 24 16:06 UTC] No.42184993[source]▶
Sorry, I can't tell whether this is sarcasm or not. If it's a genuine question, the articles are labelled.
replies(3): >>42185255 #>>42185359 #>>42185584 #
23B1 ◴[19 Nov 24 16:38 UTC] No.42185359[source]▶
Labeled by whom, and following what set of rules or guidelines? Are those rules agreed upon and enforced in some way? What are the consequences for breaking those rules?
replies(2): >>42185709 #>>42186552 #
Supermancho ◴[19 Nov 24 17:09 UTC] No.42185709[source]▶
> Labeled by whom, and following what set of rules or guidelines?

Ostensibly, the staff. More specifically, editors and leadership.

> Are those rules agreed upon and enforced in some way?

Editorials were labeled to distinguish scientific findings, distilled to simple language for a larger audience, from opinion pieces and what-ifs. This evaporated over time.

> What are the consequences for breaking those rules?

The content wasn't published.

Asking inane questions with simple answers, that are readily available, is not productive.

replies(1): >>42186303 #
23B1 ◴[19 Nov 24 17:55 UTC] No.42186303[source]▶
You're not thinking deeply enough about the problem, which is annoying because I'm addressing the main thrust of the original article.

Staff/editors/leadership cannot be trusted to label correctly if they are serving their own agendas. This is a real problem when we're looking to science to guide sociopolitical decision making, e.g. during a pandemic, or in childcare, or with the environment.

replies(2): >>42186734 #>>42190590 #
ImPostingOnHN ◴[20 Nov 24 03:27 UTC] No.42190590[source]▶
> Staff/editors/leadership cannot be trusted to label correctly if they are serving their own agendas

This can be boiled down to "nobody can be trusted to do anything", which is technically true.

The question is, is there evidence of motives leading to actual misbehavior? Having a nonzero motive to misbehave isn't the same as that.

replies(1): >>42191420 #
1. 23B1 ◴[20 Nov 24 07:02 UTC] No.42191420[source]▶
It can be boiled down to incentive alignment - though a lot of people (falsely) believe that incentives can (or should) be tuned for social good.

> is there evidence of motives leading to actual misbehavior?

Yes. Having a 'very strong opinion' is a strong indicator that a publication concerned with science has gone off the rails.

replies(1): >>42197436 #
2. ImPostingOnHN ◴[20 Nov 24 19:49 UTC] No.42197436[source]▶
> It can be boiled down to incentive alignment

Sure, if "it" here means your opinion of what's important.

Incentive alignment and misalignment isn't evidence of wrongdoing, though.

> Having a 'very strong opinion' is a strong indicator that a publication concerned with science has gone off the rails.

Interesting opinion. I thank you for it and respectfully disagree.