| |
| ▲ | fireflash38 7 days ago | parent | next [-] | | You can't expect people to read past the title, cmon now. | |
| ▲ | knowitnone 7 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | So the articles themselves have no opinions? They don't make conclusions and use carefully chosen words to sway the reader? | | |
| ▲ | Supermancho 7 days ago | parent [-] | | Other than to simplify the concepts for a subjectively "inclined" reader, no. Language is not mathematics. There is no perfection in the area of communication. This is not an insightful observation. Scientific America aimed to be informative and useful in context of that information, when I was a reader (80s). | | |
| ▲ | 23B1 7 days ago | parent [-] | | > There is no perfection in the area of communication. Bull puckey. I can be precise in my estimate, and contextual in my language. "We believe x to be generally true because of y chance of likelihood" while not precise in conclusion, it is precise in its intent, which is to communicate a degree of certainty and to convey integrity of thought. This is commonsense science writing that even the plebs can understand. |
|
| |
| ▲ | 23B1 7 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Labeled by whom, and following what set of rules or guidelines? Are those rules agreed upon and enforced in some way? What are the consequences for breaking those rules? | | |
| ▲ | Supermancho 7 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > Labeled by whom, and following what set of rules or guidelines? Ostensibly, the staff. More specifically, editors and leadership. > Are those rules agreed upon and enforced in some way? Editorials were labeled to distinguish scientific findings, distilled to simple language for a larger audience, from opinion pieces and what-ifs. This evaporated over time. > What are the consequences for breaking those rules? The content wasn't published. Asking inane questions with simple answers, that are readily available, is not productive. | | |
| ▲ | 23B1 7 days ago | parent [-] | | You're not thinking deeply enough about the problem, which is annoying because I'm addressing the main thrust of the original article. Staff/editors/leadership cannot be trusted to label correctly if they are serving their own agendas. This is a real problem when we're looking to science to guide sociopolitical decision making, e.g. during a pandemic, or in childcare, or with the environment. | | |
| ▲ | ImPostingOnHN 6 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > Staff/editors/leadership cannot be trusted to label correctly if they are serving their own agendas This can be boiled down to "nobody can be trusted to do anything", which is technically true. The question is, is there evidence of motives leading to actual misbehavior? Having a nonzero motive to misbehave isn't the same as that. | | |
| ▲ | 23B1 6 days ago | parent [-] | | It can be boiled down to incentive alignment - though a lot of people (falsely) believe that incentives can (or should) be tuned for social good. > is there evidence of motives leading to actual misbehavior? Yes. Having a 'very strong opinion' is a strong indicator that a publication concerned with science has gone off the rails. | | |
| ▲ | ImPostingOnHN 6 days ago | parent [-] | | > It can be boiled down to incentive alignment Sure, if "it" here means your opinion of what's important. Incentive alignment and misalignment isn't evidence of wrongdoing, though. > Having a 'very strong opinion' is a strong indicator that a publication concerned with science has gone off the rails. Interesting opinion. I thank you for it and respectfully disagree. | | |
| ▲ | 23B1 5 days ago | parent [-] | | Having reliable sources for scientific news and a high standard for truth therein is obviously important, moral, and good. Your opinion is wrong. | | |
| ▲ | ImPostingOnHN 4 days ago | parent [-] | | > Having reliable sources for scientific news and a high standard for truth therein is obviously important, moral, and good. I'm glad we could find shared ground here. I wholeheartedly agree, even if I respectfully disagree with your totally unrelated very strong opinion that "Having a 'very strong opinion' is a strong indicator that a publication concerned with science has gone off the rails" | | |
| ▲ | 23B1 4 days ago | parent [-] | | It is vitally important that scientists put their duty above their burning desire to have a 'hot take', especially in medicine and public health. This shouldn't be controversial. |
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | Supermancho 7 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > You're not thinking deeply enough about the problem, > Staff/editors/leadership cannot be trusted to label correctly if they are serving their own agendas. This is a real problem when we're looking to science to guide sociopolitical decision making, ...or you know, you could have stated what you meant instead of asking questions you didn't care about for your own reasons. None of what you say applies to a publication any more than other forms of communication. There is a lot of philosophical rambling in these threads. | | |
| ▲ | 23B1 7 days ago | parent [-] | | I do care about my questions which are germane to the point of the article. I'm not being philosophical or obtuse; "who watches the watchers" is a common consideration in dealing with accountability and truth, and is indeed a core value of the scientific method. Scientific publications don't get to free themselves from that obligation if they want to be regarded as either. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | jjk166 7 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | It's weird we're at the point where there are a decent number of adults who have likely never read an actual magazine. |
|
|
