We are told that “The gold standard of expert-determined scientific evidence should be the new standard in America’s court system”:
A recent poll of Americans conducted by the Center for Truth in Science found that 61% of those surveyed believe juries should not award settlements unless there is consistent scientific evidence to do so. In fact, they believe that juries themselves are not qualified to make statements or decisions about the safety of a product or ingredient.
Rather, respondents believe that court-appointed panels of independent scientific experts are the “gold standard” when it comes to determining settled science amongst contradictory and conflicting claims.Joseph Annotti, “Juries’ Scientific Guesswork Has No Place in Courts” at RealClearScience
So. In a science world where Scientific American broke with a 175-year tradition to endorse a candidate for U.S. President, we are still supposed to believe in some objective gold standard of science?
Precisely what those people GAVE UP is any claim to be considered objective. Sorry. Scientists can’t just deke in and out of objectivity whenever it suits them. And they’ll sure miss it when it’s gone.
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.