Scientific American endorses Kamala Harris

[sjastro]

For only the second time in its 179 year old history has the publication backed a presidential candidate.
Hopefully posting this in the science forum will lead to a more respectful dialogue......

Vote for Kamala Harris to Support Science, Health and the Environment

Kamala Harris has plans to improve health, boost the economy and mitigate climate change. Donald Trump has threats and a dangerous record

www.scientificamerican.com

 

[Shemjaza]

Seems reasonable to acknowledge that Donald Trump and his allies are opposed to scientific evidence, higher education and public spending on research.

 

[Matt5]

“It’s a toxic dump,” an Italian scientist known to the group by his pseudonym, Aneurus Inconstans, said about science. “It’s not about curiosity anymore, it’s just a career.”

The Rise of the Science Sleuths

Given that "science" is currently a disaster, I guess it's appropriate for Scientific American to endorse Kamala Harris.

See more of this ongoing disaster here: science+.

 

[Astrid]

“It’s a toxic dump,” an Italian scientist known to the group by his pseudonym, Aneurus Inconstans, said about science. “It’s not about curiosity anymore, it’s just a career.”

The Rise of the Science Sleuths

Given that "science" is currently a disaster, I guess it's appropriate for Scientific American to endorse Kamala Harris.

See more of this ongoing disaster here: science+.

What makes this Italians opinion specal?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

For only the second time in its 179 year old history has the publication backed a presidential candidate.
Hopefully posting this in the science forum will lead to a more respectful dialogue......

Vote for Kamala Harris to Support Science, Health and the Environment

Kamala Harris has plans to improve health, boost the economy and mitigate climate change. Donald Trump has threats and a dangerous record

www.scientificamerican.com

................................. I'm not backing either side. Neither should """ Science """

 

[Hans Blaster]

................................. I'm not backing either side. Neither should """ Science """

Scientific American is a commercial popular magazine. It is not "Science" or even Science. Its readership is not primarily scientists, nor has it ever been. It has included editorials for a long time (and columns expressing the opinions of the columnists). Scientific American doesn't speak for "Science" and they can take whatever stances they wish. (I have italicized the publication titles for clarity.)

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Scientific American is a commercial popular magazine. It is not "Science" or even Science. Its readership is not primarily scientists, nor has it ever been. It has included editorials for a long time (and columns expressing the opinions of the columnists). Scientific American doesn't speak for "Science" and they can take whatever stances they wish. (I have italicized the publication titles for clarity.)

What makes you think I'm not familiar with the magazine, Hans? And no, I don't conflate the magazine with science on the whole.

Good gravy, man? Do you think I'm uneducated or something? I know very well that Scientific American doesn't speak for "Science." But not everyone who is influenced by media out there in the world knows that magazines shouldn't, and don't, speak for all of live practice itself.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

“It’s a toxic dump,” an Italian scientist known to the group by his pseudonym, Aneurus Inconstans, said about science. “It’s not about curiosity anymore, it’s just a career.”

The Rise of the Science Sleuths

Given that "science" is currently a disaster, I guess it's appropriate for Scientific American to endorse Kamala Harris.

See more of this ongoing disaster here: science+.

Well, these days no one believes or trusts anyone outside of their own echo chamber.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well, these days no one believes or trusts anyone outside of their own echo chamber.

And that's the difference mass psychosis brings in catalyzing those who value Critical Thinking on the one side, and the mere delusion of Critical Cynicism on the other side(s).

 

[Astrid]

What makes you think I'm not familiar with the magazine, Hans? And no, I don't conflate the magazine with science on the whole.

Good gravy, man? Do you think I'm uneducated or something? I know very well that Scientific American doesn't speak for "Science." But not everyone who is

Well, these days no one believes or trusts anyone outside of their own echo ch

influenced by media out there in the world knows that magazines shouldn't, and don't, speak for all of live practice itself.

My reaction to your post was same as 'blasters.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

My reaction to your post was same as 'blasters.

And?

Saying this doesn't tell me (nor teach me) anything, Lady Astrid. What is it that everyone thinks I'm missing where "Science" and politics is concerned?

 

[Hans Blaster]

What makes you think I'm not familiar with the magazine, Hans? And no, I don't conflate the magazine with science on the whole.

Good gravy, man? Do you think I'm uneducated or something? I know very well that Scientific American doesn't speak for "Science." But not everyone who is influenced by media out there in the world knows that magazines shouldn't, and don't, speak for all of live practice itself.

Then why are you complaining about "science" taking political sides?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Then why are you complaining about "science" taking political sides?

Ask my wife .....................

 

[sjastro]

“It’s a toxic dump,” an Italian scientist known to the group by his pseudonym, Aneurus Inconstans, said about science. “It’s not about curiosity anymore, it’s just a career.”

The Rise of the Science Sleuths

Given that "science" is currently a disaster, I guess it's appropriate for Scientific American to endorse Kamala Harris.

See more of this ongoing disaster here: science+.

Rejections rates of papers at first review are far higher than even the sleuths found in your link.

In high quality journals such as Nature and Science the rejection rate is even higher and around 80%+ at first submission.
Does this mean that science is a ‘disaster’, no it illustrates the stringent nature of peer review which is a good thing as one would hope only the highest quality papers get through.

If the use of lead based octane boosters in fuels had undergone a proper peer review before its introduction in the 1920s which might have recommended the health and environmental impacts be investigated, it could have saved the millions of premature deaths which occurred over the subsequent decades.

Rejections due to ethical issues such as plagiarism, duplication issues, authorship issues and worst of all data manipulation and fabrication amounts to around 10-20%.
So rather than being a negative, peer review is doing the job it was designed to do.

 

[sjastro]

................................. I'm not backing either side. Neither should """ Science """

The Scientific American endorsement mentioned hate and division which manifests as a toxic and potentially dangerous environment for scientists to work in such as climate science and controlling the spread of COVID.

Climate Science​

1. Harassment of Scientists: A Nature article discusses the surge in harassment of scientists, including those researching climate change. It highlights that scientists are facing online abuse, threats, and real-world confrontations.
2. Violent Threats: A survey by Global Witness found that almost 40% of climate scientists had been targeted with online harassment, and 8% had received death threats.
3. Sexist Abuse: Another Nature article reports that 39% of climate scientists have experienced online harassment or abuse related to their research.

COVID-19​

1. Death Threats: A Nature survey of over 300 scientists who gave media interviews about COVID-19 found that 15% had received death threats, and 22% had received threats of physical or sexual violence.
2. Peter Hotez: Vaccine specialist Peter Hotez has faced death threats and harassment for speaking out against anti-vaccine misinformation during the COVID-19 pandemic.
3. Protection Needed: Another Nature article emphasizes the need for protection for COVID-19 scientists in the public eye, noting that many have received threats of violence.

The main culprits here are right wing politicians and commentators who fan anti-intellectualism much like the racism in your up and coming election.
I think a publication such as Scientific American has every right for endorsing politicians particularly when the safety of scientists is considered.

 

[Richard T]

They also endorsed Biden. lol I guess they were unscientific his cognitive abilities. But they are not M.D.'s nor are they economists. From the others I read they are not even scientists. So just media lackeys who support abortions, and the rest of the progressive agenda. Good thing they showed up for Biden and now Harris so we can know their agenda.

 

[Matt5]

From the article:
It’s a tripartite column, making three points.

1.) The magazine [Scientific American] has published a lot of woke and relatively nonscientific op-eds over the past few years. We know this because I’ve singled out almost all of the ones that Michael mentions (and more), but let’s reiterate a few (with links to the original columns and my critiques):

“Modern Mathematics Confronts its White Patriarchal Past,” My critique is here.
“Denial of Evolution Is a Form of White Supremacy.” This is a particularly ludicrous column implying that the motivation for creationism is white supremacy. Any fool knows that it’s almost always religion. My critiques are here and here. I do not understand how the editor allowed such an egregious misrepresentation to be published.

Source:
Michael Shermer documents the decline and fall of Scientific American – Why Evolution Is True

What's wrong with science and math going Woke? Woke is religion. If you like religion in your science and math, then no problem.

The Numbers Are In on How Biden-Era Funding Is Skewing Scientific Research Ever-Wokeward | RealClearInvestigations

I guess Kamala Harris is the most appropriate candidate for a Woke science system.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The Scientific American endorsement mentioned hate and division which manifests as a toxic and potentially dangerous environment for scientists to work in such as climate science and controlling the spread of COVID.

The main culprits here are right wing politicians and commentators who fan anti-intellectualism much like the racism in your up and coming election.
I think a publication such as Scientific American has every right for endorsing politicians particularly when the safety of scientists is considered.

Sure. I understand there are unfortunate outcomes for scientists who are caught in the middle. But, I think on a sociological level, some of this negative activation comes from mass psychosis brought on by the combination of ideological, political and religious stressors during the last several years, such as those expressed in the following article/document:

Covid-19 and the Apocalypse: Religious and Secular Perspectives - PMC

The current Covid-19 pandemic has led to existential crises. One way of finding meaning in this is through apocalyptic narratives. We differentiate between religious (based upon eschatology) and secular apocalypticism (based upon radical political ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

So, with this in mind, it would probably behoove mainstream scientists to be more fully aware of the wider pluralistic, diverse, and not necessarily secular minded culture, that their scientific endeavors are embedded within.

 

[AV1611VET]

Scientific American endorses Kamala Harris.

Why am I not surprised?

(I wonder if Scientific American endorsed Frances Kelsey?)

 

[sjastro]

Sure. I understand there are unfortunate outcomes for scientists who are caught in the middle. But, I think on a sociological level, some of this negative activation comes from mass psychosis brought on by the combination of ideological, political and religious stressors during the last several years, such as those expressed in the following article/document:

Covid-19 and the Apocalypse: Religious and Secular Perspectives - PMC

The current Covid-19 pandemic has led to existential crises. One way of finding meaning in this is through apocalyptic narratives. We differentiate between religious (based upon eschatology) and secular apocalypticism (based upon radical political ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

So, with this in mind, it would probably behoove mainstream scientists to be more fully aware of the wider pluralistic, diverse, and not necessarily secular minded culture, that their scientific endeavors are embedded within.

An issue that scientists could have done a better job at is to communicate science to the general public.

Historically anti-intellectualism which is not exclusively an issue scientists have had to bear, but also academics writers and teachers to name a few, is motivated by lumping these groups into an elitist class which tries to dictate how the general population live their lives.
This view still prevails and probably explains the sociological and psychological aspects you mention, the evidence is found on this very site as scientists are frequently accused of being elitist.

By not engaging with the general public on issues such as climate change and COVID reinforces the elitist attitude some of the public might have of scientists and creates a vacuum which is filled by crackpots and those that are anti-science based on ideological and religious reasons.