trump has a first: he led Scientific American to 'unanimously and immediately' choose to make an endorsement in a political election for the first time in 175 years. They have endorsed Joe Biden. That's how bad for science trump is.
Scientific American backs Biden with its first presidential endorsement in history [Video]
they had to. our vile President is sucking up to the non scientific beliefs of the worst part of the Republican Party.
and people die because of it.
I now know how the good people of Germany felt as Hitler rose to power in Germany.
it really is VERY similar.
Science sucks anyways.
Science magazines have no business endorsing political candidates. I'm sorry.
It's partisan, unethical, and wholly inconsistent with the principle of rigorous scientific objectivity. The highest calling of a science magazine is to provide the readership with facts and knowledge, while diligently avoiding telling readers what to think.
If the editors of Scientific American feel so strongly about the election, they ought to have voiced their opinions as private citizens, not by using the publication as a platform. They've cheapened and disgraced the magazine by crossing that line.
Shame on them. And shame on anyone who lauds their selling out their principles, for a meager soapbox no less.
trump has a first: he led Scientific American to 'unanimously and immediately' choose to make an endorsement in a political election for the first time in 175 years. They have endorsed Joe Biden. That's how bad for science trump is.
Scientific American backs Biden with its first presidential endorsement in history [Video]
This is to their credit.Extremes always brings surprises. Evidently, you did not notice that for the 175 years they have been around, they have never endorsed any political candidate.
Even if we accept your proposition as true, this is irrelevant to the question of the appropriateness of political commentary in a science magazine.If you use your mind and common sense, you would realize that what Trump is doing is totally against what they represent, which is science.
Absolutely not. An editorial magazine might naturally do such a thing. A political magazine is certainly expected to do so. A principled science magazine has absolutely no business commenting on political issues, whether the politics are related to science or not. This is neither the function of the magazine nor is it compatible with the principles of objective scientific discourse. No self-respecting peer-reviewed journal would tolerate it, and the editors of Scientific American have now cheapened and dirtied their publication after 175 years of remaining above the fray.This magazine has never been political before but they do represent science. When there is someone that is totally against science, a science magazine would have to (by nature) take the opposite side.
All irrelevant to the appropriateness of the endorsement.Science has put us where we are now with cell phones, cars, air conditioning, televisions, medicines and just about everything else we use in our lives. If there is someone that wants to do away with science, we will revert to what we were before there was any science.
What differentiates us from prehistoric man is that we adhere to codes of law, ethics, and higher principles--principles that dictate we don't prostitute political commentary on the pages of science magazines as an act of desperation, for example--that define what the right choice is.This magazine did what is right. They defend what they know...without science, we would still be prehistoric man
Sad, but not surprising that Ms. Helmuth chose to politicize this magazine given her history at Slate and the WaPo.
I now know how the good people of Germany felt as Hitler rose to power in Germany.
Nothing sad about it, it's to be celebrated that they stand up for science against the war on science by trump.
As I said, it was a unanimous and immediate decision when they discussed it. Of course, you lamely try to defend a war on science with personal attacks.
What differentiates us from prehistoric man is that we adhere to codes of law, ethics, and higher principles--principles that dictate we don't prostitute political commentary on the pages of science magazines as an act of desperation, for example--that define what the right choice is.
LOL the President that is bringing you a vaccine for Covid 19 in months, rather than years, hates science. Do you think that meme works anyplace but on the far left fringe?
??? What's the personal attack?
This is to their credit.
Even if we accept your proposition as true, this is irrelevant to the question of the appropriateness of political commentary in a science magazine.
Absolutely not. An editorial magazine might naturally do such a thing. A political magazine is certainly expected to do so. A principled science magazine has absolutely no business commenting on political issues, whether the politics are related to science or not. This is neither the function of the magazine nor is it compatible with the principles of objective scientific discourse. No self-respecting peer-reviewed journal would tolerate it, and the editors of Scientific American have now cheapened and dirtied their publication after 175 years of remaining above the fray.
All irrelevant to the appropriateness of the endorsement.
Furthermore, as I've already pointed out, if the SA editors had personal concerns about the fitness of Pres. Trump's administration, there are plenty of other appropriate avenues for them to voice their concerns.
What differentiates us from prehistoric man is that we adhere to codes of law, ethics, and higher principles--principles that dictate we don't prostitute political commentary on the pages of science magazines as an act of desperation, for example--that define what the right choice is.
None of these positions has any bearing on the appropriateness of a political endorsement.The only rational choice is to dump the moron leading this country into disaster. We've seen the disaster of coronavirus deniers. We're just beginning to see the disaster of climate change deniers. Trump has to go.
A totally misinformed and ignorant reply. Much like Trump would say. Do I actually have to point out that everything you now enjoy in life is based on science (cell phone, air conditioning, car, television, etc, etc, etc)
The distinction is irrelevant.They did not endorse a "political party". They endorsed a man that believes in science versus a man that doesn't
Not by violating your ethics and the editorial standards of your publication. I've otherwise addressed this point in #11 and #19.Our first obligation in life is to believe in life itself and if you believe science can help solve the problem, you need to speak out.
Again, the distinction between party and party nominee is irrelevant to this debate. Political commentary has no business in a science magazine period.This was not a political statement as it was not for or against either party. They did not talk against the Republicans and for the Democrats. They spoke against Trump and for Biden and then only for their adherence to science and not their political views on how to run the country.
An endorsement of a political candidate is ipso facto a political stand. The specific reasons given for it are irrelevant.I repeat, they did not make a political stand. They stood for science and against a lack of science.
Science is simply knowledge--a tool to be applied, nothing more or less. It has no will, no consciousness, no moral governance. The application of knowledge (science) is dictated by codes of laws, ethics, and principles. Without these things, science is useless or, just as often, phenomenally destructive.What they did not have is means of transportation, means of communication, means of protecting themselves against the environment, or means of making their lives better and easier. Science gave us all of those. It certainly was not code of laws, ethics, and principles.
I watched an interview with the editor. Every single thing she said about Trump is true. I applaud the journal for coming out publicly against the Planet Killer-in-Chief. :applaudtrump has a first: he led Scientific American to 'unanimously and immediately' choose to make an endorsement in a political election for the first time in 175 years. They have endorsed Joe Biden. That's how bad for science trump is.
Scientific American backs Biden with its first presidential endorsement in history [Video]
The distinction is irrelevant.
Not by violating your ethics and the editorial standards of your publication. I've otherwise addressed this point in #11 and #19.
Again, the distinction between party and party nominee is irrelevant to this debate. Political commentary has no business in a science magazine period.
An endorsement of a political candidate is ipso facto a political stand. The specific reasons given for it are irrelevant.
Science is simply knowledge--a tool to be applied, nothing more or less. It has no will, no consciousness, no moral governance. The application of knowledge (science) is dictated by codes of laws, ethics, and principles. Without these things, science is useless or, just as often, phenomenally destructive.
To argue that transgressing good laws, ethics, and principles is justifiable for sake of technological advancement is like arguing that throwing away the steering wheel, brakes, and windshield on a car to make the engine 25% larger is a good idea. It betrays a profound ignorance of how the car (science) works and why the wheel, brakes, and windshield (editorial standards of scientific publications) are indispensable.
I wish I could convince you of how important these standards are. I wish the SA editors understood it. Ah well, if wishes were horses...
I now know how the good people of Germany felt as Hitler rose to power in Germany.
I didn't say trump hates science, I said he has declared war on science. He isn't bringing a vaccine - everything he has done on it is wrong. He has pushed dangerous false cures, cause the US to be by far the worst country in the world handling the virus, and now he's trying to get an untested vaccine released before the election to help him get votes.
Your personal attack on the editor in chief as being someone who wrongly politicizes things.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?