Scientific American and Political Endorsements

[bhobba]

From this week's digital edition of Scientific American:

'This week, Scientific American endorses Kamala Harris. That's in part due to the Biden-Harris administration’s approach to AI safety and the White House’s support for the chipmaking industry.'

Do people think a science magazine, admittedly at a more populist than professional level, should become involved in this? I don't mean their choice of a political candidate - that's what democracy is all about, and we all can form our own views (in fact, that is how democracies work, or should work anyway). Should it be part of its charter and purpose?

Correctly, IMHO, our forum rules do not allow it. There are forums galore where this can be discussed.

Thanks
Bill

 

[mcastillo356]

Facts are undoubtedless, opinions are not. Science pursues facts
Best wishes
Marcos

 

[erobz]

"I don't mean their choice of a political candidate"- well... who are "they". Was it a unanimous companywide decision to support a particular political party within the organization?

Otherwise, I'm a good bit conflicted in sharing my opinion because you are asking what is thought and then also saying our forum correctly doesn't allow it. I guess I'll ask pity from administration under the claim of entrapment and dare to answer. If I'm meant to be the sacrificial lamb (hanging at 8 inexorable demerits), so be it.

IMO Science is becoming the new religion of the masses. "Follow the science"...even though you really don't have any personal understanding... just believe. Better yet, pretend you get it...like everyone else. I think its natural (greed) that any political party that proclaims, "follow the science", is going to be accepted and pushed by the scientific community so power/money are shifted to the science community from the electorate. I have my doubts science can survive it...I predict it to be a poisoned chalice.

 

[erobz]

Facts are undoubtedless, opinions are not. Science pursues facts
Best wishes
Marcos

It persue's "facts", but lets be honest...it continuously falls short. We know this to be historically true...and everyone always thinks..."oh, we've got it this time" it's a lock... I don't think science is something to be worshiped. I like some of it, but I don't believe a billionth of it (conservatively large estimate - based on what I don't currently know about it).

 

[Borg]

Do people think a science magazine, admittedly at a more populist than professional level, should become involved in this? I don't mean their choice of a political candidate - that's what democracy is all about, and we all can form our own views (in fact, that is how democracies work, or should work anyway). Should it be part of its charter and purpose?

If they feel that one party is more friendly towards fact-based science, wouldn't that be in their best interests?

 

[erobz]

If they feel that one party is more friendly towards fact-based science, wouldn't that be in their best interests?

I have some cats that I feed. I don't think they realize that they are basically my captives.

 

[Borg]

I have some cats that I feed. I don't think they realize that they are basically my captives.

Whatever works for you

 

[Dullard]

Worth noting: This particular magazine has endorsed a candidate exactly twice in 180 years. I won't get into politics, but there is a piece of (modified) general wisdom which may apply: "If everyone around is losing their mind while you remain calm, you may just not understand the situation."

 

[pinball1970]

. I don't think they realize that they are basically my captives.

Not a huge domestic cat fan, they kill birds.

Anyway, what I think of them is not the purpose of the post. If you think you are holding your cat captive I think you need to re think.

If you do not let your cat out ever (best case scenario) it will eat you if you died suddenly and left it with no way out and no food.
If you do let it out then it probably has three of four feeding points from neighbours.
If you died suddenly and the cat had a way out? One meal missed it's gone with no tears and never coming back.

If all humanity died in a truly cataclysmic global pandemic, say cold like for transmission but Marburg for survival rate, then cats would simply move out doors, decimate the wild life, have a crack at establishment of apex predator.

Without a thought for owners or humans in general.

 

[bob012345]

I like the old SA with more detailed articles and less flashy but more meaningful graphics but that change was some twenty years ago. That’s what SA should focus on, not politics.

 

[erobz]

Not a huge domestic cat fan, they kill birds.

Anyway, what I think of them is not the purpose of the post. If you think you are holding your cat captive I think you need to re think.

If you do not let your cat out ever (best case scenario) it will eat you if you died suddenly and left it with no way out and no food.
If you do let it out then it probably has three of four feeding points from neighbours.
If you died suddenly and the cat had a way out? One meal missed it's gone with no tears and never coming back.

If all humanity died in a truly cataclysmic global pandemic, say cold like for transmission but Marburg for survival rate, then cats would simply move out doors, decimate the wild life, have a crack at establishment of apex predator.

Without a thought for owners or humans in general.

They are house cats, but I think you could be missing my point.

 

[pinball1970]

I think you could be missing my point.

Which is?

 

[pinball1970]

are house cats

That's good

 

[erobz]

Which is?

We tend not to bite the hand that feeds us.

 

[gleem]

Did anyone read the editorial that announced this? What was the reason for their endorsement?

 

[Frabjous]

I like the old SA with more detailed articles and less flashy but more meaningful graphics but that change was some twenty years ago. That’s what SA should focus on, not politics.

I occasionally stumble across an issue from the ‘60’s or ‘70’s and always end up reading it from cover to cover. It was once a more substantive magazine.

 

[Hornbein]

The last time I read Scientific American it was so bad I never read it again. That was maybe twenty years ago. I felt that the articles were written by unpaid interns with pimples.

 

[bhobba]

I occasionally stumble across an issue from the ‘60’s or ‘70’s and always end up reading it from cover to cover. It was once a more substantive magazine.

Indeed it was. As I said, I looked forward to it in my youth.

While the post was about politics in SA, I did mention that such topics are not for discussion here. The thread seems OK and civil so far, but please ensure it stays within our guidelines and civil. If not, I (or another mentor) will have to intervene.

It's disheartening to see a decline in standards, a symptom that's hard to ignore. I'm eager to hear other's thoughts on why this might happen.

Thanks
Bill

 

[Tom.G]

I'm eager to hear other's thoughts on why this might happen.

$$$

 

[gleem]

$$$

They might be losing readership as reflected in this thread.