Remix clone Hacker News

Scientific American's challenge to certain political beliefs doesn't undermine its commitment to scientific awareness. I find their articles more informative than arbitrary podcasts. No one claims SciAM is the sole source of truth, but it's a valuable resource. You're free to ignore it, just as I ignore most podcasters. If you rely on Joe Rogan for science and claim it be truer than SciAm, there's little to discuss here.

▲

FredPret 7 days ago | parent | next [-]

It's like we're talking past each other.

SciAm and the media are held to a higher standard... by themselves. They claim a position of authority. So when they are biased or get something wrong, it's a problem because their brands have a halo of truth left over from olden days.

Joe Rogan doesn't claim a position of authority. So when he is biased or gets something wrong, it's just what's to be expected from a bro with a podcast.

▲

sangnoir 7 days ago | parent [-]

Your assumption is that there exists an "apolitical truth" that science should aspire to. There isn't.

There are many truths that can be discovered through the scientific method. Those truths are inherently political (see elsewhere on this discussion about the truthful obesity research funded by Coca-Cola that focused on exercise rather than sugar intake)

▲

FredPret 7 days ago | parent | next [-]

The notion that there is no objective truth, that everything is a social construct, is intellectual poison.

Fundamental truths exist in physics and mathematics and other fields, completely orthogonal to politics.

People may have opinions about it, but it is what it is.

Anyway, I’m not talking about science at all. I’m talking about Scientific American and the broader media.

They claim impartiality; they wear a facade of objectivity; they sell themselves as neutral arbiters. But in reality they are apparatchiks.

Joe Rogan is popular not because he claims to be above it all or to be objective, but because there’s no facade at all.

	▲	sangnoir 7 days ago \| parent [-]
		Objective truth =/= Apolitical truth What research gets funding, grant selection, grant applications, getting donations, creating a research group, what gets published, who gets award prizes... all of it is political. Same goes dor the negative space of what doesn't get researched and what truths don't get discovered (see laws blocking government money from gun violence research) > They claim impartiality; they wear a facade of objectivity... If they did claim impartiality, I don't think the editor would be continually spouting political hot takes on Twitter.

▲

almatabata 7 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> Your assumption is that there exists an "apolitical truth" that science should aspire to. There isn't.

You can definitely try present different theories on a given topic, citing different papers that defend different viewpoints. You can have a bias for one interpretation, I will not fault you for that. But if you pretend like you favorite interpretation is the settled science and anyone that disagrees is an idiot, then I think you failed at your job as a science publication.

▲

anon291 7 days ago | parent | prev [-]

SciAm is not really a journal. However, scientific publications like Nature and the Lancet have removed articles due to political ramifications.