Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
RoofGardener

Unscientific American

44 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

RoofGardener

In an extraordinary editorial piece, the editorial team have written an article formally backing Joe Biden's presidential campaign. 

Scientific American has never - in its 175 year history - done this before. 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientific-american-endorses-joe-biden/

Doesn't seem very scientific to ME ? But then, I'm not American ! :) 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
  • Confused 2
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cookie Monster
2 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

In an extraordinary editorial piece, the editorial team have written an article formally backing Joe Biden's presidential campaign. 

Scientific American has never - in its 175 year history - done this before. 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientific-american-endorses-joe-biden/

Doesn't seem very scientific to ME ? But then, I'm not American ! :) 

https://www.allsides.com/news-source/scientific-american

`During our July 2020 independent review, our editor found that many Scientific American articles are written from the perspective of critical race theory, a widely debated foundation for academic study and thought typically associated with left-wing academics and commentators. The editor noted numerous articles in which Scientific America revealed a left-wing ideological slant`

Wiki: Critical race theory advocates that white supremacy and racial power are maintained over time, and in particular that the law may play a role in the process: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory

Against the current backdrop then this says everything.

  • Thanks 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bee

 

proving some 'scientists' are NOT immune to TDS... and sometimes inappropriately wade into politics...  

and there will never be a vaccine against that... 

(I expect there is a money / funding trail behind this endorsement )

 

  • Like 5
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
13 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

In an extraordinary editorial piece, the editorial team have written an article formally backing Joe Biden's presidential campaign. 

Scientific American has never - in its 175 year history - done this before. 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientific-american-endorses-joe-biden/

Doesn't seem very scientific to ME ? But then, I'm not American ! :) 

When you have a choice between a relatively normal politician and one who actively denies any scientific evidence he doesn't like, it seems entirely in the best interests of science to back the former.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bee
10 minutes ago, Setton said:

When you have a choice between a relatively normal politician and one who actively denies any scientific evidence he doesn't like, it seems entirely in the best interests of science to back the former.


Trump has scientific advisers - but he is the leader of the country and must assess the info... and assess any political motivation creeping into the 'scientific' advice... and make balanced decisions...

Biden being a puppet and in the first stages of dementia can be controlled by anyone... scientist or otherwise ...if his handlers want him to be..

 

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HiddenHorn

Not an American either - but it seems likely that it's less for Biden and more against Donald. Even if we leave politics as much out as possible - it's a fact that Trump uses anti scientific rhetoric, denies proven scientific facts, lies more than your average politician etc.

It makes sense that as someone who likes science you are against someone who pushes against widespread rationality and believe in the scientific method.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats

Nope. 
Science has no politics and salutes no flag. 
This is a whole bag of nope. 
Trump could promote world ice theory and Scientific American should **** and talk about evolution and geomorphological change, not launch into screeds supporting people who don’t promote world ice theory.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cookie Monster
1 hour ago, HiddenHorn said:

Not an American either - but it seems likely that it's less for Biden and more against Donald. Even if we leave politics as much out as possible - it's a fact that Trump uses anti scientific rhetoric, denies proven scientific facts, lies more than your average politician etc.

It makes sense that as someone who likes science you are against someone who pushes against widespread rationality and believe in the scientific method.

You only think he does if you accept what the media say at face value without investigating.

Almost all Trump speeches and interviews are on YouTube and 99% of the claims made against him are pure BS. 99% of everything he says gets distorted, taken out of context, or has selected sound bites removed ignoring what came before and after, to wage a negative political campaign against him. There is also a lot of blatant lying too where they completely make up what he is supposed to have said.

Most of the US are fully clued up after 4 years of this nonsense, a Trump landslide is on its way.

Edited by Cookie Monster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HiddenHorn
4 minutes ago, Cookie Monster said:

You onlu think he does if you accept what the media say at face value without investigating.

Almost all Trump speeches and interviews are on YouTube and 99% of the claims against him are pure BS.

I admit that I may have sounded like that, but I actually based my opinion on Politifact, admittedly I didn't fake check every single thing there, I am no political scientist, but if you find a large amount of falsehoods there that's definitely something that needs to be fixed.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
56 minutes ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Nope. 
Science has no politics and salutes no flag. 
This is a whole bag of nope. 
Trump could promote world ice theory and Scientific American should **** and talk about evolution and geomorphological change, not launch into screeds supporting people who don’t promote world ice theory.

I can see the self preservation angle, and they make some good points, but I've got to agree with you, this isn't sciences turf, this isn't what science does. This is not science. It's an issue to make politicians aware of so they can take the reigns from there. I don't see this going well.

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cookie Monster
8 minutes ago, HiddenHorn said:

I admit that I may have sounded like that, but I actually based my opinion on Politifact, admittedly I didn't fake check every single thing there, I am no political scientist, but if you find a large amount of falsehoods there that's definitely something that needs to be fixed.

Why are you relying on a 3rd party to tell you what to think about Trump?

Go watch YouTube videos and see what he actually said.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
1 hour ago, HiddenHorn said:

Not an American either - but it seems likely that it's less for Biden and more against Donald. Even if we leave politics as much out as possible - it's a fact that Trump uses anti scientific rhetoric, denies proven scientific facts, lies more than your average politician etc.

It makes sense that as someone who likes science you are against someone who pushes against widespread rationality and believe in the scientific method.

It does make sense from a self preservation angle, but as @Sir Wearer of Hats said, thats not science. I think they crossed lines into politics where science doesn't belong. 

It would be great if it would. IMHO people are the weak link in the government system. Voting doesn't work. I personally feel that such important positions should only be achieved by qualifications, actually earning the position rather than who can make up the most impressive crap. 

The tactic I personally see a likeness with I'd how Trump got in to begin with. A lot of people voted for him because "he isn't Hillary". Maybe they are looking at that angle out of desperation. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
2 hours ago, bee said:


Trump has scientific advisers - but he is the leader of the country and must assess the info... and assess any political motivation creeping into the 'scientific' advice... and make balanced decisions...

That'll be why he completely ignores the science on climate change and pandemics, is it?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
2 hours ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Nope. 
Science has no politics and salutes no flag. 
This is a whole bag of nope. 
Trump could promote world ice theory and Scientific American should **** and talk about evolution and geomorphological change, not launch into screeds supporting people who don’t promote world ice theory.

You don't think science publications also have a duty to promote the scientific process and evidence based decision making?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
L.A.T.1961

This move by SA just looks unprofessional. Its quite obvious that they have strong views to go to these lengths but they should have continued to hide their bias and say nothing. 

I would not be surprised to see a backlash against SA with a loss of sales and the publication having to issue a reappraisal of their original line. 

There is no place for a mainstream science publication in politics.  

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits

Scientific American is a news magazine. It is not the publication of a learned society, nor of a higher education institution. It's a news outlet, and its beat is science. Its principal authors are generally practicing scientists (occasionally historians or philosophers of science, as the subject of the article might demand), but its audience is the general public, probably skewed toward the relatively well-educated.

It has columns, and those columns have expressed opinions from time to time about the newsworthy concerns of the day. Even the iconic sainted Martin Gardner, writing about that epitome of the non-political, recreational mathematics, managed to get in a dig at the Laffer Curve, a cornerstone of the case for the Reagan tax cuts. I'm not 100% sure, but I believe SA's coverage of the dangers of steam locomotives back in the mid-1800's hauled some political frieght back then.

As to the magazine being left-leaning, well, literacy is like that. On average :) .

 

Edited by eight bits
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
38 minutes ago, L.A.T.1961 said:

I would not be surprised to see a backlash against SA with a loss of sales and the publication having to issue a reappraisal of their original line. 

Doubt it. The overwhelming majority of their readership, being the same scientists, academics and experts that Trump and his supporters like to disparage, will no doubt agree.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cookie Monster
34 minutes ago, L.A.T.1961 said:

This move by SA just looks unprofessional. Its quite obvious that they have strong views to go to these lengths but they should have continued to hide their bias and say nothing. 

I would not be surprised to see a backlash against SA with a loss of sales and the publication having to issue a reappraisal of their original line. 

There is no place for a mainstream science publication in politics.  

I would like to see the broad de-politicisation of society.

We should be focused on policies, performance and track record at meeting policy pledges, where failure arises facts so we can evaluate if it was outside of the Governments ability to control, and based on all of this people can then reach their own judgement on whether they will trust a leader with their vote.

Politics based on character assassination, lying, and manipulation, shows a party has nothing to other most Americans. So their hope is if they bad mouth their opponent enough they will destroy his support base. Its a disgrace and goes against most peoples sense of fairness and morality.

People dont want a government that lied and cheated its way into power. No Government like that is worth two cents. They want a government that is going to represent them on the matters which mean the most to them. A competent Government, one up to the task of performing. Not one that underperforms so it tries to destroy its opponent instead.

The Democrats joined the dark side 4 years ago.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Big Jim

Proof that there is nothing that can't be politicized in 2020.  Is Joe Biden really worth breaking a 175 year streak of common sense?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
43 minutes ago, Cookie Monster said:

I would like to see the broad de-politicisation of society.

We should be focused on policies, performance and track record at meeting policy pledges, where failure arises facts so we can evaluate if it was outside of the Governments ability to control, and based on all of this people can then reach their own judgement on whether they will trust a leader with their vote.

Politics based on character assassination, lying, and manipulation, shows a party has nothing to other most Americans. So their hope is if they bad mouth their opponent enough they will destroy his support base. Its a disgrace and goes against most peoples sense of fairness and morality.

People dont want a government that lied and cheated its way into power. No Government like that is worth two cents. They want a government that is going to represent them on the matters which mean the most to them. A competent Government, one up to the task of performing. Not one that underperforms so it tries to destroy its opponent instead.

The Democrats joined the dark side 4 years ago.

And yet Trump is the one being criticised over his many failures, while his supporters fall back on 'alternative facts' and ridiculous claims that Biden has Alzheimer's.

You sure you're on the right side here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats
9 hours ago, Setton said:

You don't think science publications also have a duty to promote the scientific process and evidence based decision making?

Yes, they should but DEVOID OF ANY POLITICS. I literally said so in my post. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats
4 hours ago, Cookie Monster said:

I would like to see the broad de-politicisation of society.

We should be focused on policies, performance and track record at meeting policy pledges, where failure arises facts so we can evaluate if it was outside of the Governments ability to control, and based on all of this people can then reach their own judgement on whether they will trust a leader with their vote.

Politics based on character assassination, lying, and manipulation, shows a party has nothing to other most Americans. So their hope is if they bad mouth their opponent enough they will destroy his support base. Its a disgrace and goes against most peoples sense of fairness and morality.

People dont want a government that lied and cheated its way into power. No Government like that is worth two cents. They want a government that is going to represent them on the matters which mean the most to them. A competent Government, one up to the task of performing. Not one that underperforms so it tries to destroy its opponent instead.

The Democrats joined the dark side 4 years ago.

And the Republicans welcomes them there.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
12 minutes ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Yes, they should but DEVOID OF ANY POLITICS. I literally said so in my post. 

Well, when the politician decides to actively disregard and devalue science, do they bit have a duty to call that out?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Autochthon1990

"What did he say this time?"

"That Covid will go away on its own, you can nuke hurricanes to get rid of them, injecting bleach is good for your health, and that raking forests stops fires."

"...Jesus CHRIST, alright write up the endorsement for the other guy before this country's IQ plunges like a ball of lead dropped into the pacific."

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Autochthon1990
5 hours ago, Cookie Monster said:

Politics based on character assassination, lying, and manipulation, shows a party has nothing to other most Americans. So their hope is if they bad mouth their opponent enough they will destroy his support base. Its a disgrace and goes against most peoples sense of fairness and morality.

Showing clips of what the guy actually said is none of those things. Reporting the awful things that people close to the president say he did is none of those things. You just don't like the fact that people have the audacity to report anything other then glowing reviews of the man you've invested the lions share of your personality and self esteem into. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.