Apparently, I’m not the only one who has noticed the degradation of science into poli-speak. Today, the editorial board of the NY Post wrote “Scientific American editor’s partisan rants expose a deep ignorance of what science IS.” The editors seem to realize what I have been saying. Science isn’t what it proposes it is: Objective, thorough, void of passion and confusing nuance. Well, not science, but those who write about, edit, and purpose “scientific” information for personal agendas. The editorial uses the anti-Trump rant of Scientific American chief editor Laura Helmuth as an example of blatant bias. *
And the editors make the reasonable argument that given her and other journals’ political stances, their readers should question the journals’ objectivity. What happens in editorial rooms, for example, to an article that counters the position du jour, say, one on climate data? That so many published articles assume “climate change” is the product of carbon dioxide makes an inquiring mind wonder: What of other causes? What of conflicting data? What of using not deductive, but inductive reasoning that takes some weather phenomena and extrapolates as so many do, a conclusion? And what about the basic assumption itself?
As the Post’s editors point out, Scientific American endorsed Joe Biden and then Kamala Harris, two of the arguably most science-challenged people on the planet, Harris more so than Biden. Remember her gathering child actors to say with regard to space-based observatories that—pointing to her eyes—“we’ll be able o see it with our own eyes”? Remember her defining AI as “two letters”? Her statement was “"I think the first part of this issue that should be articulated is AI is kind of a fancy thing, first of all, it's two letters, it means artificial intelligence but ultimately what it is is it's about machine learning.” This is the mind that Helmuth’s Scientific American chose to endorse. Is a banana a banana, Laura Helmuth? Could the editors of the journal be more glaringly political than they were in endorsing a woman who gave us the phrase “word salad” and told the world that “Ukraine is a country in Europe” before she went on to say it was smaller than Russia?
And the editors go further by noting how other journals’ editorial boards made statements ground in ideology, calling Trump, who put together the pharmaceutical coalition to develop the COVID vaccines, “anti-science.” The degradation of objectivity runs across the “scientific spectrum” of journals.
Whom Can You Trust? Yourself.
The politics of the day and the pressures of Left-wing self-proclaimed elites make the rest of us doofus-brained people suspect that truth isn’t a goal of modern science.
So, here’s what my rather intelligent dad told me that provides me with an ongoing lesson. When I entered college, he advised: “Read your assignments. If you don’t understand them, read them again. If you still don’t understand them, read them over and over until you understand them. It’s your job to learn.” From that advice, I relay my own advice. If you read a journal article that you don’t understand, read it again. If it doesn’t make sense after careful perusal, know that it probably doesn’t really make sense. And as you read, don’t assume anything. Especially, note the language. Any modifier—clause, phrase, or single adjective or adverb—is an indicator of subjectivity in the author.
*https://nypost.com/2024/11/11/opinion/scientific-american-editors-partisan-rants-expose-a-deep-ignorance-of-what-science-is/
And the editors make the reasonable argument that given her and other journals’ political stances, their readers should question the journals’ objectivity. What happens in editorial rooms, for example, to an article that counters the position du jour, say, one on climate data? That so many published articles assume “climate change” is the product of carbon dioxide makes an inquiring mind wonder: What of other causes? What of conflicting data? What of using not deductive, but inductive reasoning that takes some weather phenomena and extrapolates as so many do, a conclusion? And what about the basic assumption itself?
As the Post’s editors point out, Scientific American endorsed Joe Biden and then Kamala Harris, two of the arguably most science-challenged people on the planet, Harris more so than Biden. Remember her gathering child actors to say with regard to space-based observatories that—pointing to her eyes—“we’ll be able o see it with our own eyes”? Remember her defining AI as “two letters”? Her statement was “"I think the first part of this issue that should be articulated is AI is kind of a fancy thing, first of all, it's two letters, it means artificial intelligence but ultimately what it is is it's about machine learning.” This is the mind that Helmuth’s Scientific American chose to endorse. Is a banana a banana, Laura Helmuth? Could the editors of the journal be more glaringly political than they were in endorsing a woman who gave us the phrase “word salad” and told the world that “Ukraine is a country in Europe” before she went on to say it was smaller than Russia?
And the editors go further by noting how other journals’ editorial boards made statements ground in ideology, calling Trump, who put together the pharmaceutical coalition to develop the COVID vaccines, “anti-science.” The degradation of objectivity runs across the “scientific spectrum” of journals.
Whom Can You Trust? Yourself.
The politics of the day and the pressures of Left-wing self-proclaimed elites make the rest of us doofus-brained people suspect that truth isn’t a goal of modern science.
So, here’s what my rather intelligent dad told me that provides me with an ongoing lesson. When I entered college, he advised: “Read your assignments. If you don’t understand them, read them again. If you still don’t understand them, read them over and over until you understand them. It’s your job to learn.” From that advice, I relay my own advice. If you read a journal article that you don’t understand, read it again. If it doesn’t make sense after careful perusal, know that it probably doesn’t really make sense. And as you read, don’t assume anything. Especially, note the language. Any modifier—clause, phrase, or single adjective or adverb—is an indicator of subjectivity in the author.
*https://nypost.com/2024/11/11/opinion/scientific-american-editors-partisan-rants-expose-a-deep-ignorance-of-what-science-is/
RSS Feed