Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Some thoughts from American Conservative on SciAm’s foray into politics


Breaking with 175 years of tradition by endorsing a candidate for U.S. president:

What is perhaps most striking about the editorial is its list of overwhelming political objectives in the name of science. Whether or not the authors understand the implications, the logic of the piece delivers a rather significant and damaging blow. However, the damage is not inflicted upon their intended target in the way they assume. Rather, it is the very possibility of scientific inquiry itself that is the true victim. The editors have fundamentally missed the reality before them, which is that the politicization of reason and science does not lead to freedom of thought and discovery. What results, instead, is the absolutization of politics itself.

The protection and flourishing of scientific inquiry that is needed has slipped through the intellectual fingers of Scientific American‘s editors. Generally speaking, scientific or medical conclusions are not as certain as the expert class would like people to believe. The authors presume, and explicitly defend, conclusions which require greater nuance than is either provided or even alluded to.

Brian Jones, “Science And Soft Totalitarianism” at The American Conservative

One thing that’s pretty certain is that the decision will come back to haunt them if they remain serious about science. Their pronouncements on a variety of subjects will necessarily be read as mere political positions.

It will be meaningless to harp on the claim that the public doesn’t “trust science” when “science” is a set of political positions.

See also: Scientific American breaks with 175-year tradition, endorses Joe Biden for US President. They can break with tradition in this way if they want, of course. But then they will no longer be able to say that their science is not tainted with (drenched in?) politics. Which is why, no matter what the crisis, no one did it in the past. The outcome, no matter who wins the U.S. election, will be reduced public trust in science. Scientific American could well find itself down there with “media” generally, in terms of public trust.


The irony! Scientific American is holding forth on an algorithm that might solve “political paralysis” Why should we now believe that SciAm’s account of Brett Hennig’s “alternative democracy” ideas is presented to us for any reason other than to sell SciAm’s chosen political candidate for US prez? The thing about sudden partisanship is that you can buy it but you can’t sell it. It’s almost like the folk at Scientific American don’t really get that.

Headline: Propaganda Organ Endorses Political Party's Candidate Film at 11. Andrew asauber
EDTA @ 6 Edison had a large group of people working for him who were largely responsible for the patents he owned. Those who worked for Edison knew he was going to take credit, but were paid enough not to care. He gave them mostly free reign to create a system that encouraged innovation, which does not seem to exist these days. There are a few people who invent on their own time, but too few and far between. About a century ago, there was talk of shutting down the patent office. It was believed that anything that could be invented had been invented. BobRyan
Mac and cheese:
As a general circulation publication that presents and promotes science and scientific discoveries, it is not difficult to comprehend why they would endorse Biden over Trump.
SciAm promotes the unscientific evolutionism. And Biden is ignorant of science. If you want an ignorant puppet for a President then Biden is your guy. ET
Edison was overrated as an inventor. What he was excellent at was managing a group of people to invent things through cooperation and synergy. Mac McTavish
>What’s needed is a modern day Edison. Very true, but the problem is that most things discoverable by one person have been found. (Yes, there are exceptions, but they get rarer as time goes on.) Today, new findings come from groups, and that means corporations, etc., as you listed. EDTA
Politicized science is not science. Truthfreedom
As a general circulation publication that presents and promotes science and scientific discoveries, it is not difficult to comprehend why they would endorse Biden over Trump. Mac McTavish
@1 and the only difference between George Soros and emperor Palpatine it lightning fingers AaronS1978
There are 3 primary types of employment scientists work for after getting their degrees. They can work for a corporation, a school/university, or a government entity. In each case, they aren't free to create anything. What's needed is a modern day Edison. BobRyan
They've been purely political for 50 years and it hasn't "come back to haunt them" yet. This isn't new. Federally sponsored science has dominated the field since the end of WW2, and has been explicitly partisan since the "global warming" coup of 1975. Ordinary people lost faith in "science" a long time ago. Some of the lost faith is guided into false flags like anti-vax positions and flat earth nonsense, so it's easier for the orthodox to paint ALL skeptical positions as crazy. Bear in mind that TAC is owned by Soros. polistra

Leave a Reply