• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Scientific American has never endorsed in a political election in 175 years. Correction: had never

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Science sucks anyways.;)

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)
 
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.

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. 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. 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.

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.

Is this where you would prefer to be?

prehistorictimes.jpg

What a ridiculous post you have put up. Everyone of us have to step up to support what we represent and against those that want to destroy what we represent. Trump would love to destroy science. This magazine did what is right. They defend what they know...without science, we would still be prehistoric man
 
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.
This is to their credit.

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.
Even if we accept your proposition as true, this is irrelevant to the question of the appropriateness of political commentary in a science magazine.

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.
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.

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.
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.

This magazine did what is right. They defend what they know...without science, we would still be prehistoric man
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.
 
Sad, but not surprising that Ms. Helmuth chose to politicize this magazine given her history at Slate and the WaPo.

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.
 
I now know how the good people of Germany felt as Hitler rose to power in Germany.

Yup, it's the same bull****. Make Germany Great Again. Make Italy Great Again. These scapegoats are the problem. And the suckers fall for it every time.

Today's Republican party is totally unrecognizable from the core fiscal conservative and pragmatic beliefs of the past. Conservatives were once proponents of conservation and environmentalism.
 
Nothing sad about it, it's to be celebrated that they stand up for science against the war on science by trump.

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?

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's the personal attack?
 
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.

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.
 
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?

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.

??? What's the personal attack?

Your personal attack on the editor in chief as being someone who wrongly politicizes things.
 
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.

I totally disagree with you.They did not endorse a "political party". They endorsed a man that believes in science versus a man that doesn't". If there is a problem associated with someone going against science and it is harming people, all people that believe that not adhering to what science is saying is correct have a human obligation to be against that person. 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. 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.

Trump is not only hurting the United States. He is hurting the whole world and he is doing that by not believing in science (CDC guidelines and Global warming for example). I repeat, they did not make a political stand. They stood for science and against a lack of science.

As far as your last statement is concerned. Are you sure you mean what you said? Are you sure that in prehistoric times there was no code of law, no ethics, no principles? All of those are human by nature. All of us, even our prehistoric ancestors had them. 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.
 
Last edited:
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.
None of these positions has any bearing on the appropriateness of a political endorsement.

If you can't understand this--if you can't understand why peer-reviewed journals eschew political commentary and why the editorship of Scientific American, for 175 years, rightly did the same--because denouncing Pres. Trump is "what is right" (as @Luckyone opines), you just don't get it.

The suicide bomber blowing up a bus for Allah is willing to sacrifice himself for "what is right". The man who burns down a research center doing animal testing is dedicated to doing "what is right".

What is truly right is to uphold the good principles and ethics that the bomber, the arsonist, and the foolish magazine editor transgress in their zeal and desperation. Our respect for the rules is the only thing that distinguishes us from these lawless, short-sighted fools.

You think this endorsement is going to make a lick of difference in the upcoming US election? All it does is sully the established reputation of the magazine and mark the editors as zealots who care more about prostituting their opinions than maintaining the editorial standards of their publication. They're short-sighted, unprincipled fools. Shame on them and anyone who condones their folly as "what is right". Pres. Trump has driven you all half mad, and that's as much your fault as it is his.
 
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)

Yeah, but I was joking, because I expected the Trumpists to say something like that.
 
They did not endorse a "political party". They endorsed a man that believes in science versus a man that doesn't
The distinction is irrelevant.

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.
Not by violating your ethics and the editorial standards of your publication. I've otherwise addressed this point in #11 and #19.

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.
Again, the distinction between party and party nominee is irrelevant to this debate. Political commentary has no business in a science magazine period.

I repeat, they did not make a political stand. They stood for science and against a lack of science.
An endorsement of a political candidate is ipso facto a political stand. The specific reasons given for it are irrelevant.

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.
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...
 
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]
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. :applaud
 
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 do apologize but I simply do not agree with you on anything you stated.
 
I now know how the good people of Germany felt as Hitler rose to power in Germany.

But they didn't have themselves as an example. At least we have the benifit of seeing the parallels to Hitlers rise to power and the devastating results it brought to the world; what a frightening turn of events. I never thought These Untied States could ever be this threatened and by our own president would have been unimaginable. IF/when Biden is elected it will take his whole first term just to put U.S. back on the rails. Hopefully he can get us going enough to keep up with the rest of the world so that we can eventually reassume our place as World Leader. :shock:
 
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.

Perhaps you see a difference between hating science and "declaring war on science." Seems like a difference without a distinction. Who is telling you that the President is trying to get an "untested" vaccine released? Do you follow science at all? All of these Pharma companies have been doing nothing but testing for several months now.

In regard to Ms. Helmuth, the 175 year history of the magazine says a different story. It's not a personal attack, it just a simple fact. She has a left wing political bias as noted with her history at Slate and the WaPo. IMHO, she has significantly devalued the magazine by making it explicitly political. Reasonable people will now question the material they publish. Is it being published because it furthers their political agenda or because it had scientific merit? It's a sad day
 
Back
Top Bottom