Scientific American Endorses Kamala Harris, and Warns About Electing Trump

Stephen3141 · Sep 18, 2024

Scientific American makes presidential endorsement for second time in 179 years

‘The US faces two futures,’ according to editors at top science magazine

www.independent.co.uk

“Vote for Kamala Harris to Support Science, Health and the Environment,” read the headline in Scientific American on Monday, announcing the publication’s official support for the Democratic presidential candidate."

“The US faces two futures,” the editors wrote, pushing one candidate who “offers the country better prospects, relying on science, solid evidence and the willingness to learn from experience.”

They continued: “In the other future, the new president endangers public health and safety and rejects evidence, preferring instead nonsensical conspiracy fantasies.”
---------- ----------

I have been emphasizing that among Christian groups, it is the
anti-intellectual ones that are often drawn to Trump, and his explanations
that defy sound logic. These are also the groups that tend to be drawn
to conspiracy theories.

I have been emphasizing that this election is very much over Epistemological
models, (regardless of whether the candidates view this as a cutting plane) with the
groups that emnbrace the life of the mind and careful logic being forced to vote
against Trump (because of his disregard for our shared reality, logic, and the
fair rule of law in America).

Although this presidential election is about much, much more than anti-intellectual
Protestant Fundamentalists with Trump, against the world, the anti-intellectual Christian
groups have pretty much hit the wall. They started turning against the life of the mind
during the 1700's (in the European Enlightenment), and became more and more
alienated by modern science in the 20th century.

Now, with their embracing of conspiracy theories, and outright lies, these groups
are in a position to embrace some ill thought out new "Cultural Revolution", similar
to what Mao imposed on Communist China, but supposedly in the name of
"Christianity".

I think that Scientific American is correct to associate Trump's followers with
the trends of rejecting objective reasoning, embracing conspiracy theories,
rejecting the scientific reasoning that backs up global warming, and this
magazine considers the Trump presidency to have been a disaster.

Scientific American considers the 2025 Plan to be "devious and decisive".
Scientific American warns that Trump's plans would not be a future for America,
that was driven by sound science and technology. They mention what Trump
would probably allow in the area of AI, as a positive danger of electing Trump.
---------- ----------

It is clear that Scientific American has no place for bans on abortions. But,
this is only one objection that they have, to Trump's platform.

RileyG · Sep 18, 2024

Trump never said he was opposed to science or the environment. How odd.

chevyontheriver · Sep 18, 2024

Stephen3141 said:
Scientific American makes presidential endorsement for second time in 179 years

‘The US faces two futures,’ according to editors at top science magazine

www.independent.co.uk

“Vote for Kamala Harris to Support Science, Health and the Environment,” read the headline in Scientific American on Monday, announcing the publication’s official support for the Democratic presidential candidate."

“The US faces two futures,” the editors wrote, pushing one candidate who “offers the country better prospects, relying on science, solid evidence and the willingness to learn from experience.”

They continued: “In the other future, the new president endangers public health and safety and rejects evidence, preferring instead nonsensical conspiracy fantasies.”
---------- ----------

I have been emphasizing that among Christian groups, it is the
anti-intellectual ones that are often drawn to Trump, and his explanations
that defy sound logic. These are also the groups that tend to be drawn
to conspiracy theories.

I have been emphasizing that this election is very much over Epistemological
models, (regardless of whether the candidates view this as a cutting plane) with the
groups that emnbrace the life of the mind and careful logic being forced to vote
against Trump (because of his disregard for our shared reality, logic, and the
fair rule of law in America).

Although this presidential election is about much, much more than anti-intellectual
Protestant Fundamentalists with Trump, against the world, the anti-intellectual Christian
groups have pretty much hit the wall. They started turning against the life of the mind
during the 1700's (in the European Enlightenment), and became more and more
alienated by modern science in the 20th century.

Now, with their embracing of conspiracy theories, and outright lies, these groups
are in a position to embrace some ill thought out new "Cultural Revolution", similar
to what Mao imposed on Communist China, but supposedly in the name of
"Christianity".

I think that Scientific American is correct to associate Trump's followers with
the trends of rejecting objective reasoning, embracing conspiracy theories,
rejecting the scientific reasoning that backs up global warming, and this
magazine considers the Trump presidency to have been a disaster.

Scientific American considers the 2025 Plan to be "devious and decisive".
Scientific American warns that Trump's plans would not be a future for America,
that was driven by sound science and technology. They mention what Trump
would probably allow in the area of AI, as a positive danger of electing Trump.
---------- ----------

It is clear that Scientific American has no place for bans on abortions. But,
this is only one objection that they have, to Trump's platform.

They don't seem to be able to disassociate Plan 2025 from Donald Trump. Is that 'scientific'?

Akita Suggagaki · Nov 2, 2024

RileyG said:
Trump never said he was opposed to science or the environment. How odd.

Politics v. science: How President Trump's war on science impacted public health and environmental regulation

Politics v. science: How President Trump's war on science impacted public health and environmental regulation - PMC

During his campaign for president, Joe Biden vowed to “end the politics and follow the science” when dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic and other public health and environmental crises. He was immediately criticized by then President Trump, who cast ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Where Kamala Harris and Donald Trump stand on the issues that matter most to scientists

https://www.science.org/content/article/where-kamala-harris-and-donald-trump-stand-issues-matter-most-scientists#

Merrill · Nov 2, 2024

Stephen3141 said:
Scientific American makes presidential endorsement for second time in 179 years

‘The US faces two futures,’ according to editors at top science magazine

www.independent.co.uk

“Vote for Kamala Harris to Support Science, Health and the Environment,” read the headline in Scientific American on Monday, announcing the publication’s official support for the Democratic presidential candidate."

“The US faces two futures,” the editors wrote, pushing one candidate who “offers the country better prospects, relying on science, solid evidence and the willingness to learn from experience.”

They continued: “In the other future, the new president endangers public health and safety and rejects evidence, preferring instead nonsensical conspiracy fantasies.”
---------- ----------

I have been emphasizing that among Christian groups, it is the
anti-intellectual ones that are often drawn to Trump, and his explanations
that defy sound logic. These are also the groups that tend to be drawn
to conspiracy theories.

I have been emphasizing that this election is very much over Epistemological
models, (regardless of whether the candidates view this as a cutting plane) with the
groups that emnbrace the life of the mind and careful logic being forced to vote
against Trump (because of his disregard for our shared reality, logic, and the
fair rule of law in America).

Although this presidential election is about much, much more than anti-intellectual
Protestant Fundamentalists with Trump, against the world, the anti-intellectual Christian
groups have pretty much hit the wall. They started turning against the life of the mind
during the 1700's (in the European Enlightenment), and became more and more
alienated by modern science in the 20th century.

Now, with their embracing of conspiracy theories, and outright lies, these groups
are in a position to embrace some ill thought out new "Cultural Revolution", similar
to what Mao imposed on Communist China, but supposedly in the name of
"Christianity".

I think that Scientific American is correct to associate Trump's followers with
the trends of rejecting objective reasoning, embracing conspiracy theories,
rejecting the scientific reasoning that backs up global warming, and this
magazine considers the Trump presidency to have been a disaster.

Scientific American considers the 2025 Plan to be "devious and decisive".
Scientific American warns that Trump's plans would not be a future for America,
that was driven by sound science and technology. They mention what Trump
would probably allow in the area of AI, as a positive danger of electing Trump.
---------- ----------

It is clear that Scientific American has no place for bans on abortions. But,
this is only one objection that they have, to Trump's platform.

Let me point out that Scientific American published the ignorant and embarrassing article quite recently

Here's Why Human Sex Is Not Binary

Ova don’t make a woman, and sperm don’t make a man

www.scientificamerican.com

Which goes against biology, microbiology, and anatomy.

There is NO third sex (XYZ) in the human species. Sex is binary, and this article is right up there with flat-earth theory

that magazine used to be reputable, and now it is ideological nonsense

stevevw · Nov 3, 2024

Actually I think its the other way around. It is the Left who hate facts with Trans ideology that has been proven to be anti scientific. We just had a news story of the Left holding back facts about Puberty blockers having no benefits and actually causing harm. The Left has constantly denied the facts to push their ideology. In fact they accuse people who cite facts as being racist or bigots for simply telling the truth.

They support DEI which is based on a fringe ideology that has no scientific basis. They lie about abortion as being perfectly ok even up to full term.

The Left constantly lie about their past and change when it suits them. They have been caught manipulating the facts of headlines and news reports. For example trying to pretend Biden did not call Trump supporters garbage by changing his own words. They take peoples words and twist them into falsehoods to hide the facts.

They lied about the fact that Biden was incompetent to our face. An obvious fact. They lie about Kamala's policies changing them to suit. They have constantly been caught out over smearing Trump by twisting what he has said such as being a Nazi.

The Left has been lying and covering up the facts for decades. There is plenty of science that shows the Rights policies and positions align with facts while the Lefts ideology is unreal and causes damage to society.

I mean look at the state of education and how the Left has destroyed it with their ideology. Academics and students are filled with ideology but can't determine basic facts. Education levels has declined to an all time low. There is a massive increase in false and misleading peer review science.

Unfortunately some Scientific Journals have gone Woke and just like Hollywood and Woke corporations who are going broke and as a result some Science Journals are falling for the Woke and denying facts and reality. Which is unbelievable that scientists could fall for such ideology.

Fundementally the Right stands for truth and facts. They are more willing to debate the issues and face the facts while the Left run away and hide knowing they cannot handle the truth. That is why Harris cannot do unscripted interviews because she will be exposed for the lack of facts and reality.

Jipsah · Nov 10, 2024

RileyG said:
Trump never said he was opposed to science or the environment. How odd.

I seem to remember a Trump plan called "Operation Warp Speed" to expedite the development, production, and distribution of COVID-19 vaccines, aiming to deliver vaccines on an unprecedented timeline. Trumps adversaries decried it as fake science, and some (notably certain Ms. Harris) announced that there was no way they'd take a vaccine that was a product of such a shoddy plan even if it could be done, which it couldn't. But in fact, the vaccine was rolled out in December of 2019.and probably saved many thousands of lives. The Bidenistas later claimed credit for it, because Everybody Knew that Trump was anti-science. (Yeah, right...).

So "Scientific" American is about as scientific as one might expect of an outfit that supported the election of people who were anti-vax... right up until they saw it was working. -sigh-

stevevw · Nov 11, 2024

Scientific America, Hollywood, Disney, Celebs, Rock stars, Corporations like Bud and Gillette, Target, or any other private entity should not be using their platform for politics in the first place.

Scientific America weighing in on which side is more scientific is philosophy and not science itself. Its about how science is done which is epistemics and not objective facts. They are commenting beyond their role as science. They are commenting as scientists who are themselves philosophers and therefore political ideology when speaking about what is science or not.

RileyG · Nov 11, 2024

stevevw said:
Scientific America, Hollywood, Disney, Celebs, Rock stars, Corporations like Bud and Gillette, Target, or any other private entity should not be using their platform for politics in the first place.

Scientific America weighing in on which side is more scientific is philosophy and not science itself. Its about how science is done which is epistemics and not objective facts. They are commenting beyond their role as science. They are commenting as scientists who are themselves philosophers and therefore political ideology when speaking about what is science or not.

I work at Target and they heavily promote liberal policies.

stevevw · Nov 11, 2024

RileyG said:
I work at Target and they heavily promote liberal policies.

Its like anything a retail store may sell. You can have alternatives but don't make a political campaign out of it. They may sell shirts with Punk on them or any alternative but they don't then make a campaign around promoting Punk or anything. Its not their job.

I remember all the corporations one in particular Quantas where the boss was pro Left. Quantas had 1,000s of employees who were conservatives but he made many left leaning statements as CEO which made the staff feel uncomfortable and even threatened. Many just kept quiet fearing they would lose their job.

While at the same time many of these executives were doing deals with organisations that treated women horribly or exploited 3rd world countries. They are hypocrites to even take a political stand. But if they do they need to be neutral and consistent.

We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

Scientific American Endorses Kamala Harris, and Warns About Electing Trump

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Politics v. science: How President Trump's war on science impacted public health and environmental regulation​

Where Kamala Harris and Donald Trump stand on the issues that matter most to scientists​

Well-Known Member

inquisitive

Blood Drinker

inquisitive

Veteran

inquisitive

Similar threads

Politics v. science: How President Trump's war on science impacted public health and environmental regulation

Where Kamala Harris and Donald Trump stand on the issues that matter most to scientists