|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On September 16 2020 06:14 pajoondies wrote:
Claims that Scientific American endorsing Biden is a partisan act is just another aspect of the overarching "us vs them", team style politics problem we're facing here. We're tasked with choosing the candidate we think is best suited to represent us and the policies we wish to see enacted. Silence is not neutrality anymore, it's apathy, and that's a big part of why the USA is where it is right now.
If breaking a 175 year old tradition is part of combating the anti science nonsense perpetuated by those who ignore science (right leaning climate, COVID deniers), then let's see more of it. Almost 200k dead with impending climate disaster and people want to be worried about whether a journal supporting the sane candidate is partisan or not -_-
Endorsing candidates is a political act. It suggests that people should have more reason to distrust scientific publications, whereas for 175 years prior, no cause for concern would be possible. Individuals might have political stances, but the organization itself did not.
I can see that backfiring quite badly. I see no possible way it helps the current situation.
|
On September 16 2020 07:05 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2020 06:14 pajoondies wrote:
Claims that Scientific American endorsing Biden is a partisan act is just another aspect of the overarching "us vs them", team style politics problem we're facing here. We're tasked with choosing the candidate we think is best suited to represent us and the policies we wish to see enacted. Silence is not neutrality anymore, it's apathy, and that's a big part of why the USA is where it is right now.
If breaking a 175 year old tradition is part of combating the anti science nonsense perpetuated by those who ignore science (right leaning climate, COVID deniers), then let's see more of it. Almost 200k dead with impending climate disaster and people want to be worried about whether a journal supporting the sane candidate is partisan or not -_- Endorsing candidates is a political act. It suggests that people should have more reason to distrust scientific publications, whereas for 175 years prior, no cause for concern would be possible. Individuals might have political stances, but the organization itself did not. I can see that backfiring quite badly. I see no possible way it helps the current situation. Do you think any of the 'covid is a hoax, G5 causes cancer, qanon folk cared remotely about a science magazine being apolitical?
Do you think anyone who previously trusted the scientific community will now think covid is a hoax because they are obviously political now?
|
On September 16 2020 07:08 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2020 07:05 Danglars wrote:On September 16 2020 06:14 pajoondies wrote:
Claims that Scientific American endorsing Biden is a partisan act is just another aspect of the overarching "us vs them", team style politics problem we're facing here. We're tasked with choosing the candidate we think is best suited to represent us and the policies we wish to see enacted. Silence is not neutrality anymore, it's apathy, and that's a big part of why the USA is where it is right now.
If breaking a 175 year old tradition is part of combating the anti science nonsense perpetuated by those who ignore science (right leaning climate, COVID deniers), then let's see more of it. Almost 200k dead with impending climate disaster and people want to be worried about whether a journal supporting the sane candidate is partisan or not -_- Endorsing candidates is a political act. It suggests that people should have more reason to distrust scientific publications, whereas for 175 years prior, no cause for concern would be possible. Individuals might have political stances, but the organization itself did not. I can see that backfiring quite badly. I see no possible way it helps the current situation. Do you think any of the 'covid is a hoax, G5 causes cancer, qanon folk cared remotely about a science magazine being apolitical? Do you think anyone who previously trusted the scientific community will now think covid is a hoax because they are obviously political now?
Do you think the magazine taking a political stance makes people more or less sure that their scientific findings are divorced from political bias?
I think any possible effects are in the negative direction, but if you think everyone is safely written off, you are uncautious.
Also, not everybody goes to the anti-mask rallies, posts about qanon, and G5 causes cancer. That’s a fringe that doesn’t represent the skeptical middle. Sadly, they’re very well covered by mass media so their numbers get hyped up.
|
On September 16 2020 07:05 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2020 06:14 pajoondies wrote:
Claims that Scientific American endorsing Biden is a partisan act is just another aspect of the overarching "us vs them", team style politics problem we're facing here. We're tasked with choosing the candidate we think is best suited to represent us and the policies we wish to see enacted. Silence is not neutrality anymore, it's apathy, and that's a big part of why the USA is where it is right now.
If breaking a 175 year old tradition is part of combating the anti science nonsense perpetuated by those who ignore science (right leaning climate, COVID deniers), then let's see more of it. Almost 200k dead with impending climate disaster and people want to be worried about whether a journal supporting the sane candidate is partisan or not -_- Endorsing candidates is a political act. It suggests that people should have more reason to distrust scientific publications, whereas for 175 years prior, no cause for concern would be possible. Individuals might have political stances, but the organization itself did not. I can see that backfiring quite badly. I see no possible way it helps the current situation.
It comes across that way to you, but it isn't accurate. If we assume scientists believe the things they publish, it is a simple result of their understanding of reality to endorse Biden.
It doesn't need to "help" their situation to do the right thing. The fact of the matter is that republicans disagree with scientists a lot more often than democrats and it is causing major issues. The idea that scientists should just put on their lab coat, publish and stay quiet is nonsense. They are humans with views that should be expressed. Our current government listens to scientists a lot less often than Obama's. That's a major issue that has caused actual damage. They are just being responsible by speaking up.
As I said, ignorant people are still people and still cause problems. You being more skeptical of scientists is a bad result of this, but I have a hard time saying that means they should stay silent.
On September 16 2020 07:10 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2020 07:08 Gorsameth wrote:On September 16 2020 07:05 Danglars wrote:On September 16 2020 06:14 pajoondies wrote:
Claims that Scientific American endorsing Biden is a partisan act is just another aspect of the overarching "us vs them", team style politics problem we're facing here. We're tasked with choosing the candidate we think is best suited to represent us and the policies we wish to see enacted. Silence is not neutrality anymore, it's apathy, and that's a big part of why the USA is where it is right now.
If breaking a 175 year old tradition is part of combating the anti science nonsense perpetuated by those who ignore science (right leaning climate, COVID deniers), then let's see more of it. Almost 200k dead with impending climate disaster and people want to be worried about whether a journal supporting the sane candidate is partisan or not -_- Endorsing candidates is a political act. It suggests that people should have more reason to distrust scientific publications, whereas for 175 years prior, no cause for concern would be possible. Individuals might have political stances, but the organization itself did not. I can see that backfiring quite badly. I see no possible way it helps the current situation. Do you think any of the 'covid is a hoax, G5 causes cancer, qanon folk cared remotely about a science magazine being apolitical? Do you think anyone who previously trusted the scientific community will now think covid is a hoax because they are obviously political now? Do you think the magazine taking a political stance makes people more or less sure that their scientific findings are divorced from political bias? I think any possible effects are in the negative direction, but if you think everyone is safely written off, you are uncautious. Also, not everybody goes to the anti-mask rallies, posts about qanon, and G5 causes cancer. That’s a fringe that doesn’t represent the skeptical middle. Sadly, they’re very well covered by mass media so their numbers get hyped up.
Marjorie Taylor Greene is a pretty good example of this problem being way worse than it used to be. No one gives a shit about the "skeptical middle" because it isn't running the country right now. The majority of republicans isn't the metric we are looking for. The current levels of science skepticism in republican communities is a bit over the top right now.
|
On September 16 2020 07:10 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2020 07:08 Gorsameth wrote:On September 16 2020 07:05 Danglars wrote:On September 16 2020 06:14 pajoondies wrote:
Claims that Scientific American endorsing Biden is a partisan act is just another aspect of the overarching "us vs them", team style politics problem we're facing here. We're tasked with choosing the candidate we think is best suited to represent us and the policies we wish to see enacted. Silence is not neutrality anymore, it's apathy, and that's a big part of why the USA is where it is right now.
If breaking a 175 year old tradition is part of combating the anti science nonsense perpetuated by those who ignore science (right leaning climate, COVID deniers), then let's see more of it. Almost 200k dead with impending climate disaster and people want to be worried about whether a journal supporting the sane candidate is partisan or not -_- Endorsing candidates is a political act. It suggests that people should have more reason to distrust scientific publications, whereas for 175 years prior, no cause for concern would be possible. Individuals might have political stances, but the organization itself did not. I can see that backfiring quite badly. I see no possible way it helps the current situation. Do you think any of the 'covid is a hoax, G5 causes cancer, qanon folk cared remotely about a science magazine being apolitical? Do you think anyone who previously trusted the scientific community will now think covid is a hoax because they are obviously political now? Do you think the magazine taking a political stance makes people more or less sure that their scientific findings are divorced from political bias? I think any possible effects are in the negative direction, but if you think everyone is safely written off, you are uncautious. Also, not everybody goes to the anti-mask rallies, posts about qanon, and G5 causes cancer. That’s a fringe that doesn’t represent the skeptical middle. Sadly, they’re very well covered by mass media so their numbers get hyped up. The fact you think you can be sceptical of science as a general principle and still be considered the middle probably sums up the problems facing America going forward pretty well.
|
On September 16 2020 07:20 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2020 07:05 Danglars wrote:On September 16 2020 06:14 pajoondies wrote:
Claims that Scientific American endorsing Biden is a partisan act is just another aspect of the overarching "us vs them", team style politics problem we're facing here. We're tasked with choosing the candidate we think is best suited to represent us and the policies we wish to see enacted. Silence is not neutrality anymore, it's apathy, and that's a big part of why the USA is where it is right now.
If breaking a 175 year old tradition is part of combating the anti science nonsense perpetuated by those who ignore science (right leaning climate, COVID deniers), then let's see more of it. Almost 200k dead with impending climate disaster and people want to be worried about whether a journal supporting the sane candidate is partisan or not -_- Endorsing candidates is a political act. It suggests that people should have more reason to distrust scientific publications, whereas for 175 years prior, no cause for concern would be possible. Individuals might have political stances, but the organization itself did not. I can see that backfiring quite badly. I see no possible way it helps the current situation. It comes across that way to you, but it isn't accurate. If we assume scientists believe the things they publish, it is a simple result of their understanding of reality to endorse Biden. It doesn't need to "help" their situation to do the right thing. The fact of the matter is that republicans disagree with scientists a lot more often than democrats and it is causing major issues. The idea that scientists should just put on their lab coat, publish and stay quiet is nonsense. They are humans with views that should be expressed. Our current government listens to scientists a lot less often than Obama's. That's a major issue that has caused actual damage. They are just being responsible by speaking up. As I said, ignorant people are still people and still cause problems. You being more skeptical of scientists is a bad result of this, but I have a hard time saying that means they should stay silent.
It sounds like you’re entirely writing off all the possible damage. You get what you pay for. I expect in another five years, people like you would be wondering why so many people don’t trust scientists and think they’re willing to sacrifice objectivity in the name of making political impact. I don’t think the proportion of Americans that think scientists will alter or falsify scientific conclusions to better suit political goals (Note: I’m not saying the scientists themselves don’t consider these goals very desirable) is fixed at some percentage.
They’re throwing away a fuckload of good will for just a signaling point that will be quickly forgotten. Scientific objectivity is a tough thing to lay claim to once lost.
|
On September 16 2020 07:27 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2020 07:10 Danglars wrote:On September 16 2020 07:08 Gorsameth wrote:On September 16 2020 07:05 Danglars wrote:On September 16 2020 06:14 pajoondies wrote:
Claims that Scientific American endorsing Biden is a partisan act is just another aspect of the overarching "us vs them", team style politics problem we're facing here. We're tasked with choosing the candidate we think is best suited to represent us and the policies we wish to see enacted. Silence is not neutrality anymore, it's apathy, and that's a big part of why the USA is where it is right now.
If breaking a 175 year old tradition is part of combating the anti science nonsense perpetuated by those who ignore science (right leaning climate, COVID deniers), then let's see more of it. Almost 200k dead with impending climate disaster and people want to be worried about whether a journal supporting the sane candidate is partisan or not -_- Endorsing candidates is a political act. It suggests that people should have more reason to distrust scientific publications, whereas for 175 years prior, no cause for concern would be possible. Individuals might have political stances, but the organization itself did not. I can see that backfiring quite badly. I see no possible way it helps the current situation. Do you think any of the 'covid is a hoax, G5 causes cancer, qanon folk cared remotely about a science magazine being apolitical? Do you think anyone who previously trusted the scientific community will now think covid is a hoax because they are obviously political now? Do you think the magazine taking a political stance makes people more or less sure that their scientific findings are divorced from political bias? I think any possible effects are in the negative direction, but if you think everyone is safely written off, you are uncautious. Also, not everybody goes to the anti-mask rallies, posts about qanon, and G5 causes cancer. That’s a fringe that doesn’t represent the skeptical middle. Sadly, they’re very well covered by mass media so their numbers get hyped up. The fact you think you can be sceptical of science as a general principle and still be considered the middle probably sums up the problems facing America going forward pretty well.
Political endorsement is not science. For 175 years, you could say they allowed no taint in their mag. I’d say the same if they gave a rousing endorsement of Trump. It has no place in science. But I gather the people burning it down don’t care anymore, so nothing matters.
|
On September 16 2020 07:03 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2020 06:40 LegalLord wrote:
The problem with "unprecedented endorsement" is not that science people aren't allowed to have an opinion. They can, and it can be a very strong preference. The real question is, does the value of explicitly putting forward a political position (i.e. an endorsement) outweigh the loss of apparent objectivity associated with no longer presenting oneself as an apolitical organization? It's absolutely a net hit to credibility, so the question is if the upside is worth it. It's hard to see that it would be in light of 2016. And at what point does the scientific community need to stop just putting information out for it to be ignored and misrepresented before putting their foot down? Should they stand by and do nothing as the world descends back into the dark ages because 'its not their place'? (and yes, that is an obvious hyperbole. You get the point). Trump is so uniquely terrible in this that I don't see it as a hit to their credibility, proving they go back to being apolitical when one of the candidates isn't Trump.
The "proper" thing to do is attack the ideas, even if in a one-sided fashion. Call out every hoax Trump pumps out as a hoax; that's fine. Political endorsement is very different from doing that, and far more partisan in nature.
|
Northern Ireland27412 Posts
On September 16 2020 07:30 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2020 07:20 Mohdoo wrote:On September 16 2020 07:05 Danglars wrote:On September 16 2020 06:14 pajoondies wrote:
Claims that Scientific American endorsing Biden is a partisan act is just another aspect of the overarching "us vs them", team style politics problem we're facing here. We're tasked with choosing the candidate we think is best suited to represent us and the policies we wish to see enacted. Silence is not neutrality anymore, it's apathy, and that's a big part of why the USA is where it is right now.
If breaking a 175 year old tradition is part of combating the anti science nonsense perpetuated by those who ignore science (right leaning climate, COVID deniers), then let's see more of it. Almost 200k dead with impending climate disaster and people want to be worried about whether a journal supporting the sane candidate is partisan or not -_- Endorsing candidates is a political act. It suggests that people should have more reason to distrust scientific publications, whereas for 175 years prior, no cause for concern would be possible. Individuals might have political stances, but the organization itself did not. I can see that backfiring quite badly. I see no possible way it helps the current situation. It comes across that way to you, but it isn't accurate. If we assume scientists believe the things they publish, it is a simple result of their understanding of reality to endorse Biden. It doesn't need to "help" their situation to do the right thing. The fact of the matter is that republicans disagree with scientists a lot more often than democrats and it is causing major issues. The idea that scientists should just put on their lab coat, publish and stay quiet is nonsense. They are humans with views that should be expressed. Our current government listens to scientists a lot less often than Obama's. That's a major issue that has caused actual damage. They are just being responsible by speaking up. As I said, ignorant people are still people and still cause problems. You being more skeptical of scientists is a bad result of this, but I have a hard time saying that means they should stay silent. It sounds like you’re entirely writing off all the possible damage. You get what you pay for. I expect in another five years, people like you would be wondering why so many people don’t trust scientists and think they’re willing to sacrifice objectivity in the name of making political impact. I don’t think the proportion of Americans that think scientists will alter or falsify scientific conclusions to better suit political goals (Note: I’m not saying the scientists themselves don’t consider these goals very desirable) is fixed at some percentage. They’re throwing away a fuckload of good will for just a signaling point that will be quickly forgotten. Scientific objectivity is a tough thing to lay claim to once lost.
In five years? It’s clearly a problem now.
And really what are scientists supposed to do? Just stay schtum when a Presidential election between a guy who clearly has no regard for their various fields and a guy who isn’t nearly as egregious in that regard to remain apolitical?
|
On September 16 2020 07:30 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2020 07:20 Mohdoo wrote:On September 16 2020 07:05 Danglars wrote:On September 16 2020 06:14 pajoondies wrote:
Claims that Scientific American endorsing Biden is a partisan act is just another aspect of the overarching "us vs them", team style politics problem we're facing here. We're tasked with choosing the candidate we think is best suited to represent us and the policies we wish to see enacted. Silence is not neutrality anymore, it's apathy, and that's a big part of why the USA is where it is right now.
If breaking a 175 year old tradition is part of combating the anti science nonsense perpetuated by those who ignore science (right leaning climate, COVID deniers), then let's see more of it. Almost 200k dead with impending climate disaster and people want to be worried about whether a journal supporting the sane candidate is partisan or not -_- Endorsing candidates is a political act. It suggests that people should have more reason to distrust scientific publications, whereas for 175 years prior, no cause for concern would be possible. Individuals might have political stances, but the organization itself did not. I can see that backfiring quite badly. I see no possible way it helps the current situation. It comes across that way to you, but it isn't accurate. If we assume scientists believe the things they publish, it is a simple result of their understanding of reality to endorse Biden. It doesn't need to "help" their situation to do the right thing. The fact of the matter is that republicans disagree with scientists a lot more often than democrats and it is causing major issues. The idea that scientists should just put on their lab coat, publish and stay quiet is nonsense. They are humans with views that should be expressed. Our current government listens to scientists a lot less often than Obama's. That's a major issue that has caused actual damage. They are just being responsible by speaking up. As I said, ignorant people are still people and still cause problems. You being more skeptical of scientists is a bad result of this, but I have a hard time saying that means they should stay silent. It sounds like you’re entirely writing off all the possible damage. You get what you pay for. I expect in another five years, people like you would be wondering why so many people don’t trust scientists and think they’re willing to sacrifice objectivity in the name of making political impact. I don’t think the proportion of Americans that think scientists will alter or falsify scientific conclusions to better suit political goals (Note: I’m not saying the scientists themselves don’t consider these goals very desirable) is fixed at some percentage. They’re throwing away a fuckload of good will for just a signaling point that will be quickly forgotten. Scientific objectivity is a tough thing to lay claim to once lost.
I'm not writing it off, its a clear downside. Speaking up often comes with a price. I won't wonder why people don't trust scientists because it has an obvious mechanism, it has been studied many times, and has clear trends across different countries. We happen to be particularly bad. You should understand that no one is scratching their heads over this.
If you had to guess, would you say there exist any ideologies that make it hard to accept evolution as real and the earth is more than 10,000 years old? Can you think of any?
What started climate change skepticism? At what point did it become a political issue? Both of these mechanisms of science denial are well understood. In fact, it is scientifically studied!
|
On September 16 2020 07:36 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2020 07:30 Danglars wrote:On September 16 2020 07:20 Mohdoo wrote:On September 16 2020 07:05 Danglars wrote:On September 16 2020 06:14 pajoondies wrote:
Claims that Scientific American endorsing Biden is a partisan act is just another aspect of the overarching "us vs them", team style politics problem we're facing here. We're tasked with choosing the candidate we think is best suited to represent us and the policies we wish to see enacted. Silence is not neutrality anymore, it's apathy, and that's a big part of why the USA is where it is right now.
If breaking a 175 year old tradition is part of combating the anti science nonsense perpetuated by those who ignore science (right leaning climate, COVID deniers), then let's see more of it. Almost 200k dead with impending climate disaster and people want to be worried about whether a journal supporting the sane candidate is partisan or not -_- Endorsing candidates is a political act. It suggests that people should have more reason to distrust scientific publications, whereas for 175 years prior, no cause for concern would be possible. Individuals might have political stances, but the organization itself did not. I can see that backfiring quite badly. I see no possible way it helps the current situation. It comes across that way to you, but it isn't accurate. If we assume scientists believe the things they publish, it is a simple result of their understanding of reality to endorse Biden. It doesn't need to "help" their situation to do the right thing. The fact of the matter is that republicans disagree with scientists a lot more often than democrats and it is causing major issues. The idea that scientists should just put on their lab coat, publish and stay quiet is nonsense. They are humans with views that should be expressed. Our current government listens to scientists a lot less often than Obama's. That's a major issue that has caused actual damage. They are just being responsible by speaking up. As I said, ignorant people are still people and still cause problems. You being more skeptical of scientists is a bad result of this, but I have a hard time saying that means they should stay silent. It sounds like you’re entirely writing off all the possible damage. You get what you pay for. I expect in another five years, people like you would be wondering why so many people don’t trust scientists and think they’re willing to sacrifice objectivity in the name of making political impact. I don’t think the proportion of Americans that think scientists will alter or falsify scientific conclusions to better suit political goals (Note: I’m not saying the scientists themselves don’t consider these goals very desirable) is fixed at some percentage. They’re throwing away a fuckload of good will for just a signaling point that will be quickly forgotten. Scientific objectivity is a tough thing to lay claim to once lost. In five years? It’s clearly a problem now. And really what are scientists supposed to do? Just stay schtum when a Presidential election between a guy who clearly has no regard for their various fields and a guy who isn’t nearly as egregious in that regard to remain apolitical?
They should maintain distance between their scientific endeavors and personal political beliefs. That’s why it’s so norm-breaking to have this in a pop-science publication, rather than in group letters or social media or any of the rest.
|
On September 16 2020 08:00 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2020 07:36 WombaT wrote:On September 16 2020 07:30 Danglars wrote:On September 16 2020 07:20 Mohdoo wrote:On September 16 2020 07:05 Danglars wrote:On September 16 2020 06:14 pajoondies wrote:
Claims that Scientific American endorsing Biden is a partisan act is just another aspect of the overarching "us vs them", team style politics problem we're facing here. We're tasked with choosing the candidate we think is best suited to represent us and the policies we wish to see enacted. Silence is not neutrality anymore, it's apathy, and that's a big part of why the USA is where it is right now.
If breaking a 175 year old tradition is part of combating the anti science nonsense perpetuated by those who ignore science (right leaning climate, COVID deniers), then let's see more of it. Almost 200k dead with impending climate disaster and people want to be worried about whether a journal supporting the sane candidate is partisan or not -_- Endorsing candidates is a political act. It suggests that people should have more reason to distrust scientific publications, whereas for 175 years prior, no cause for concern would be possible. Individuals might have political stances, but the organization itself did not. I can see that backfiring quite badly. I see no possible way it helps the current situation. It comes across that way to you, but it isn't accurate. If we assume scientists believe the things they publish, it is a simple result of their understanding of reality to endorse Biden. It doesn't need to "help" their situation to do the right thing. The fact of the matter is that republicans disagree with scientists a lot more often than democrats and it is causing major issues. The idea that scientists should just put on their lab coat, publish and stay quiet is nonsense. They are humans with views that should be expressed. Our current government listens to scientists a lot less often than Obama's. That's a major issue that has caused actual damage. They are just being responsible by speaking up. As I said, ignorant people are still people and still cause problems. You being more skeptical of scientists is a bad result of this, but I have a hard time saying that means they should stay silent. It sounds like you’re entirely writing off all the possible damage. You get what you pay for. I expect in another five years, people like you would be wondering why so many people don’t trust scientists and think they’re willing to sacrifice objectivity in the name of making political impact. I don’t think the proportion of Americans that think scientists will alter or falsify scientific conclusions to better suit political goals (Note: I’m not saying the scientists themselves don’t consider these goals very desirable) is fixed at some percentage. They’re throwing away a fuckload of good will for just a signaling point that will be quickly forgotten. Scientific objectivity is a tough thing to lay claim to once lost. In five years? It’s clearly a problem now. And really what are scientists supposed to do? Just stay schtum when a Presidential election between a guy who clearly has no regard for their various fields and a guy who isn’t nearly as egregious in that regard to remain apolitical? They should maintain distance between their scientific endeavors and personal political beliefs. That’s why it’s so norm-breaking to have this in a pop-science publication, rather than in group letters or social media or any of the rest.
How can they do that when the President actively politicises their science and gets in the way of those endeavours?
|
|
|
On September 16 2020 08:05 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2020 08:00 Danglars wrote:On September 16 2020 07:36 WombaT wrote:On September 16 2020 07:30 Danglars wrote:On September 16 2020 07:20 Mohdoo wrote:On September 16 2020 07:05 Danglars wrote:On September 16 2020 06:14 pajoondies wrote:
Claims that Scientific American endorsing Biden is a partisan act is just another aspect of the overarching "us vs them", team style politics problem we're facing here. We're tasked with choosing the candidate we think is best suited to represent us and the policies we wish to see enacted. Silence is not neutrality anymore, it's apathy, and that's a big part of why the USA is where it is right now.
If breaking a 175 year old tradition is part of combating the anti science nonsense perpetuated by those who ignore science (right leaning climate, COVID deniers), then let's see more of it. Almost 200k dead with impending climate disaster and people want to be worried about whether a journal supporting the sane candidate is partisan or not -_- Endorsing candidates is a political act. It suggests that people should have more reason to distrust scientific publications, whereas for 175 years prior, no cause for concern would be possible. Individuals might have political stances, but the organization itself did not. I can see that backfiring quite badly. I see no possible way it helps the current situation. It comes across that way to you, but it isn't accurate. If we assume scientists believe the things they publish, it is a simple result of their understanding of reality to endorse Biden. It doesn't need to "help" their situation to do the right thing. The fact of the matter is that republicans disagree with scientists a lot more often than democrats and it is causing major issues. The idea that scientists should just put on their lab coat, publish and stay quiet is nonsense. They are humans with views that should be expressed. Our current government listens to scientists a lot less often than Obama's. That's a major issue that has caused actual damage. They are just being responsible by speaking up. As I said, ignorant people are still people and still cause problems. You being more skeptical of scientists is a bad result of this, but I have a hard time saying that means they should stay silent. It sounds like you’re entirely writing off all the possible damage. You get what you pay for. I expect in another five years, people like you would be wondering why so many people don’t trust scientists and think they’re willing to sacrifice objectivity in the name of making political impact. I don’t think the proportion of Americans that think scientists will alter or falsify scientific conclusions to better suit political goals (Note: I’m not saying the scientists themselves don’t consider these goals very desirable) is fixed at some percentage. They’re throwing away a fuckload of good will for just a signaling point that will be quickly forgotten. Scientific objectivity is a tough thing to lay claim to once lost. In five years? It’s clearly a problem now. And really what are scientists supposed to do? Just stay schtum when a Presidential election between a guy who clearly has no regard for their various fields and a guy who isn’t nearly as egregious in that regard to remain apolitical? They should maintain distance between their scientific endeavors and personal political beliefs. That’s why it’s so norm-breaking to have this in a pop-science publication, rather than in group letters or social media or any of the rest. How can they do that when the President actively politicises their science and gets in the way of those endeavours?
They can address any specific claims or arguments. It’s actually quite easy. Refrain from any actual political endorsement, and science stays above the fray ... not Democratic Science or the Democrats with their Media and Science Establishment Allies.
You may have some confusion with mainstream opinion journals. They can devote as many pages as they want to political stances on the issues of the day. They don’t pretend to be nonpartisan, or reflect views that are true regardless of political or cultural perspective.
|
|
|
On September 16 2020 09:30 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2020 09:08 Danglars wrote:On September 16 2020 08:05 iamthedave wrote:On September 16 2020 08:00 Danglars wrote:On September 16 2020 07:36 WombaT wrote:On September 16 2020 07:30 Danglars wrote:On September 16 2020 07:20 Mohdoo wrote:On September 16 2020 07:05 Danglars wrote:On September 16 2020 06:14 pajoondies wrote:
Claims that Scientific American endorsing Biden is a partisan act is just another aspect of the overarching "us vs them", team style politics problem we're facing here. We're tasked with choosing the candidate we think is best suited to represent us and the policies we wish to see enacted. Silence is not neutrality anymore, it's apathy, and that's a big part of why the USA is where it is right now.
If breaking a 175 year old tradition is part of combating the anti science nonsense perpetuated by those who ignore science (right leaning climate, COVID deniers), then let's see more of it. Almost 200k dead with impending climate disaster and people want to be worried about whether a journal supporting the sane candidate is partisan or not -_- Endorsing candidates is a political act. It suggests that people should have more reason to distrust scientific publications, whereas for 175 years prior, no cause for concern would be possible. Individuals might have political stances, but the organization itself did not. I can see that backfiring quite badly. I see no possible way it helps the current situation. It comes across that way to you, but it isn't accurate. If we assume scientists believe the things they publish, it is a simple result of their understanding of reality to endorse Biden. It doesn't need to "help" their situation to do the right thing. The fact of the matter is that republicans disagree with scientists a lot more often than democrats and it is causing major issues. The idea that scientists should just put on their lab coat, publish and stay quiet is nonsense. They are humans with views that should be expressed. Our current government listens to scientists a lot less often than Obama's. That's a major issue that has caused actual damage. They are just being responsible by speaking up. As I said, ignorant people are still people and still cause problems. You being more skeptical of scientists is a bad result of this, but I have a hard time saying that means they should stay silent. It sounds like you’re entirely writing off all the possible damage. You get what you pay for. I expect in another five years, people like you would be wondering why so many people don’t trust scientists and think they’re willing to sacrifice objectivity in the name of making political impact. I don’t think the proportion of Americans that think scientists will alter or falsify scientific conclusions to better suit political goals (Note: I’m not saying the scientists themselves don’t consider these goals very desirable) is fixed at some percentage. They’re throwing away a fuckload of good will for just a signaling point that will be quickly forgotten. Scientific objectivity is a tough thing to lay claim to once lost. In five years? It’s clearly a problem now. And really what are scientists supposed to do? Just stay schtum when a Presidential election between a guy who clearly has no regard for their various fields and a guy who isn’t nearly as egregious in that regard to remain apolitical? They should maintain distance between their scientific endeavors and personal political beliefs. That’s why it’s so norm-breaking to have this in a pop-science publication, rather than in group letters or social media or any of the rest. How can they do that when the President actively politicises their science and gets in the way of those endeavours? They can address any specific claims or arguments. It’s actually quite easy. Refrain from any actual political endorsement, and science stays above the fray ... not Democratic Science or the Democrats with their Media and Science Establishment Allies. You may have some confusion with mainstream opinion journals. They can devote as many pages as they want to political stances on the issues of the day. They don’t pretend to be nonpartisan, or reflect views that are true regardless of political or cultural perspective. Do you even believe this? Do you not understand the assault on science Trump is making? Why do you think they suddenly picked a president? If they were partisan like you say why didn't they say to vote democrats? What does partisan mean to you? It appears to be different then to the rest of us. In related news now trump is saying that "up-played" the pandemic. It is a hoax, it is deadly, I'll down play it for calm, but I up played it. It is the regular flu, it is at least 5 times worse than the strongest flu. It can't transmit through the air, it transmits through the air. https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/newspolitics/i-up-played-it-in-abc-town-hall-trump-denies-minimizing-pandemic-threat/ar-BB194Xv4?li=AAggFp5And you still don't understand why scientists would endorse his opponent?
it is unbecoming of a scientist to voice a political opinion because politics and ethics are beyond the remit of science. Their word is no better than a layman on politics. Democrats have their own delusions what with the trans issue and their downright malevolent inability to acknowledge that life begins at conception. Additionally, their COVID hysteria has destroyed the US economy and perhaps has killed more than it has saved by unleashing the greatest mental health and constitutional crisis since Lincoln. At least Trump acknowledges god created the heavens and earth, life begins at moment of conception and god doesn't make mistakes. Trump protects religious liberties and he is therefore the greatest defender of science, and furthermore, mankind itself.
Edit: Finally, science does not operate as a democracy. It's like everyone has forgotten about Galileo ffs.
|
|
|
As good Christians you should know better, life begins at erection!
|
On September 16 2020 09:53 Anc13nt wrote:
Edit: Finally, science does not operate as a democracy. It's like everyone has forgotten about Galileo ffs.
Is this some shitty attempt to muddy waters and pretend scientific consensus never means anything? I think it is sarcasm, but every now and then we get someone who wanders into the thread and lets it rip lol
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
