"She offers us a way forward lit by rationality and respect for all."
September 19, 2024 5:56 AM Subscribe
For the second time ever (the first was in 2020), Scientific American endorses a presidential candidate. For the first time since 1996, the Teamsters union does not.
Endorsements, endorsements, endorsements.
Endorsements, endorsements, endorsements.
Must be really tough for the teamsters, having to choose between a black woman who supports union labor and a corrupt old white plutocrat who hates everything they stand for. It’s a real chin-scratcher.
posted by mhoye at 6:07 AM on September 19 [112 favorites]
posted by mhoye at 6:07 AM on September 19 [112 favorites]
From Politico: West Coast Teamsters break with national chapter in endorsing Harris
posted by doctor_negative at 6:10 AM on September 19 [61 favorites]
posted by doctor_negative at 6:10 AM on September 19 [61 favorites]
Using this space to brag that my official Kamala merch arrived just in time for me to wear my new "America Is An Idea" shirt on my flight today. Yay.
posted by phunniemee at 6:11 AM on September 19 [10 favorites]
posted by phunniemee at 6:11 AM on September 19 [10 favorites]
Western PA teamsters also endorse Harris.
posted by cmfletcher at 6:15 AM on September 19 [37 favorites]
posted by cmfletcher at 6:15 AM on September 19 [37 favorites]
Scientific American Didn’t Need to Endorse Anybody. A persuasive argument that the SciAm endorsement - though entirely correct - is counterproductive: It's not going to change any votes, and it may lower trust in good science.
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 6:18 AM on September 19 [6 favorites]
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 6:18 AM on September 19 [6 favorites]
Polls show that most of the Teamsters members support Trump. If the union's leadership also supported Trump, I would think they would officially endorse him. So they probably don't.
So what's the point of endorsements if they don't influence rank and file members to support the candidate that is best for the union? This seems like the exact situation where an official endorsement is warranted.
posted by swift at 6:20 AM on September 19 [2 favorites]
So what's the point of endorsements if they don't influence rank and file members to support the candidate that is best for the union? This seems like the exact situation where an official endorsement is warranted.
posted by swift at 6:20 AM on September 19 [2 favorites]
It's not going to change any votes, and it may lower trust in good science.
Paolo Friere to the red, white and blue courtesy phone, please.
posted by mhoye at 6:22 AM on September 19 [7 favorites]
Paolo Friere to the red, white and blue courtesy phone, please.
posted by mhoye at 6:22 AM on September 19 [7 favorites]
“ The Teamsters said its own polling data showed that, before Biden's withdrawal from the presidential race on July 21, members backed Biden 44.3% to Trump’s 36.3%.”
.
(I am unfamiliar with the . rule is it just for when a person dies or can one use it for their faith in humanity?)
posted by MirJoy at 6:27 AM on September 19 [12 favorites]
.
(I am unfamiliar with the . rule is it just for when a person dies or can one use it for their faith in humanity?)
posted by MirJoy at 6:27 AM on September 19 [12 favorites]
Kinda thinking this had something to do with it:
posted by adamsc at 6:29 AM on September 19 [30 favorites]
In total, Teamsters terminated 72.73% of the department’s staffers who were people of color, while firing only 28.57% of white staffers. Teamsters then proceeded to hire new staff members who were 73.33% white.”
The lawsuit also claimed that O’Brien “publicly humiliated” the plaintiffs in the case, claiming they were fired because they were “bad apples” and were “lazy” in their work.
posted by adamsc at 6:29 AM on September 19 [30 favorites]
Per @DailyUnionElections, Teamsters locals and councils repping about 42 percent of membership have now endorsed Harris/Walz.
Speculating based on that strange but transparent internal polling Teamsters released, sexism and name recognition seem to be influential factors in Trump support. I'd bet an internal education campaign highlighting the direct material and legal interests of the union and it's members could have brought members around to preferring Harris (or still could, who knows).
posted by Hume at 6:31 AM on September 19 [7 favorites]
Speculating based on that strange but transparent internal polling Teamsters released, sexism and name recognition seem to be influential factors in Trump support. I'd bet an internal education campaign highlighting the direct material and legal interests of the union and it's members could have brought members around to preferring Harris (or still could, who knows).
posted by Hume at 6:31 AM on September 19 [7 favorites]
In total, Teamsters...
What do we call this in social science / politics? It's not a poison pill, right? But what is it when the process which is something you value (labor organization) is corrupted to the core by things you don't like (racism)?
...I mean besides, "life".
posted by Reasonably Everything Happens at 6:49 AM on September 19 [3 favorites]
What do we call this in social science / politics? It's not a poison pill, right? But what is it when the process which is something you value (labor organization) is corrupted to the core by things you don't like (racism)?
...I mean besides, "life".
posted by Reasonably Everything Happens at 6:49 AM on September 19 [3 favorites]
Scientific American Didn’t Need to Endorse Anybody. A persuasive argument that the SciAm endorsement - though entirely correct - is counterproductive: It's not going to change any votes, and it may lower trust in good science.
The Atlantic back in the ring with it's institutionalism, as though Trump and the GOP are conventional parties and not a threat to the republic equal to or possibly greater than the confederacy itself.
I'm on board with the Scientific American editors. It actually doesn't matter if it doesn't change votes, and too bad that it may lower trust in good science. Someone needs to stand up for empirical reality against the theocrats and fascists of Project 2025.
posted by tclark at 6:56 AM on September 19 [47 favorites]
The Atlantic back in the ring with it's institutionalism, as though Trump and the GOP are conventional parties and not a threat to the republic equal to or possibly greater than the confederacy itself.
I'm on board with the Scientific American editors. It actually doesn't matter if it doesn't change votes, and too bad that it may lower trust in good science. Someone needs to stand up for empirical reality against the theocrats and fascists of Project 2025.
posted by tclark at 6:56 AM on September 19 [47 favorites]
Quick correction, mhoye: neither candidate supports unionized labor. Harris needs the support of unionized labor. The difference is between what they say they'll do and what they'll actually do.
posted by jy4m at 7:11 AM on September 19 [2 favorites]
posted by jy4m at 7:11 AM on September 19 [2 favorites]
Maybe the Teamsters saw what Biden did with the railroad workers and figured, eh, let's sit this out.
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 7:21 AM on September 19 [7 favorites]
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 7:21 AM on September 19 [7 favorites]
Someone needs to stand up for empirical reality against the theocrats and fascists of Project 2025.
Good point. I haven't heard much criticism of Trump recently.
But seriously, the question is not whether "someone" needs to speak out against him, but whether it is helpful for every institution and individual in every context to do so. I definitely understand the argument for doing do, but I still disagree. For example, I'm pretty sure that every one of my kids' teachers hates Trump, and I think a contemporary history class should include a discussion of the the Trump-led January 6 attack on democracy, but I don't want the teachers telling the kids why their parents should vote against Trump. And more practically, I think it would backfire if a teacher in a politically mixed area did that in class.
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 7:26 AM on September 19 [4 favorites]
Good point. I haven't heard much criticism of Trump recently.
But seriously, the question is not whether "someone" needs to speak out against him, but whether it is helpful for every institution and individual in every context to do so. I definitely understand the argument for doing do, but I still disagree. For example, I'm pretty sure that every one of my kids' teachers hates Trump, and I think a contemporary history class should include a discussion of the the Trump-led January 6 attack on democracy, but I don't want the teachers telling the kids why their parents should vote against Trump. And more practically, I think it would backfire if a teacher in a politically mixed area did that in class.
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 7:26 AM on September 19 [4 favorites]
Polls show that most of the Teamsters members support Trump.
Teamsters press release on polling data.
Probably worth noting that Lake Research Partners is an openly Democratic & progressive research and polling firm and gets high marks for accuracy.
posted by soundguy99 at 7:29 AM on September 19 [9 favorites]
Teamsters press release on polling data.
From April 9-July 3, nearly 300 Teamsters local unions nationwide conducted first-of-their-kind Presidential town halls, soliciting endorsement preferences from members via straw polls. The in-person voting was held prior to Biden’s withdrawal from the race. The Teamsters’ polling data shows members backed Biden 44.3 percent to Trump’s 36.3 percent.Golly, what could the difference be? (heavy sarcasm)
Following the Republican National Convention and Biden’s campaign exit, the Teamsters commissioned a national electronic poll of its 1.3 million members, overseen by an independent third party. During a voting window from July 24-Sept. 15, rank-and-file Teamsters voted 59.6 percent for the union to endorse Trump, compared to 34 percent for Harris.
In the past week, following the Democratic National Convention and recent Presidential debate, the Teamsters commissioned independent polling firm Lake Research Partners to conduct the union’s final national survey. In the poll ending Sept. 15, Teamsters selected Trump by 58 percent for endorsement over 31 percent for Harris.
Probably worth noting that Lake Research Partners is an openly Democratic & progressive research and polling firm and gets high marks for accuracy.
posted by soundguy99 at 7:29 AM on September 19 [9 favorites]
It seems like one of the problems here is that the Teamsters leadership *are* pro-Trump, for whatever reasons, and they're using polls to justify not doing anything, rather than to justify doing more to get the word out about how much better Harris aligns with the union members' best interests.
posted by atbash at 7:37 AM on September 19 [7 favorites]
posted by atbash at 7:37 AM on September 19 [7 favorites]
But seriously, the question is not whether "someone" needs to speak out against him, but whether it is helpful for every institution and individual in every context to do so
Oh yes. Every (non-government) institution, every individual (not performing their duty in a government position -- your example of teachers is not what I'm talking about). It is incumbent upon every citizen and resident of the United States to resist the people who have as their stated goal to turn America's flawed democracy into a potemkin democracy in service to white nationalists and theocrats. I'm not overstating the threat, here.
posted by tclark at 7:40 AM on September 19 [22 favorites]
Oh yes. Every (non-government) institution, every individual (not performing their duty in a government position -- your example of teachers is not what I'm talking about). It is incumbent upon every citizen and resident of the United States to resist the people who have as their stated goal to turn America's flawed democracy into a potemkin democracy in service to white nationalists and theocrats. I'm not overstating the threat, here.
posted by tclark at 7:40 AM on September 19 [22 favorites]
If you look back on the Teamsters’ history, they endorsed both Nixon and Reagan (the former famously pardoned Jimmy Hoffa). So in that context, not endorsing Trump is a step in the right direction.
posted by TedW at 8:15 AM on September 19 [4 favorites]
posted by TedW at 8:15 AM on September 19 [4 favorites]
I'm pretty sure that every one of my kids' teachers hates Trump, and I think a contemporary history class should include a discussion of the the Trump-led January 6 attack on democracy, but I don't want the teachers telling the kids why their parents should vote against Trump.
This is a completely different thing, though. Teachers -- at least, public school teachers -- have a professional obligation (and often also a legal obligation) not to advocate for or against a specific politician or political organization and not to solicit votes, while working in the classroom.
Owners and editors of newspapers, magazines, journals, and the like do not have similar, obviously overriding professional or legal obligations barring them from political advocacy. Science communicators (probably) have a moral obligation to maintain public trust in science. But they also have a moral obligation to be truthful in general and to defend scientific institutions from political attacks, so that their obligations with respect to endorsements are not so cut and dried. We can debate about the wisdom of specific endorsements, and we can disagree (as I take it we do) about whether every institution that is permitted to make an endorsement should do so in the present day. But the reasons at play are not going to be the same as in the case of teachers.
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 8:34 AM on September 19 [15 favorites]
This is a completely different thing, though. Teachers -- at least, public school teachers -- have a professional obligation (and often also a legal obligation) not to advocate for or against a specific politician or political organization and not to solicit votes, while working in the classroom.
Owners and editors of newspapers, magazines, journals, and the like do not have similar, obviously overriding professional or legal obligations barring them from political advocacy. Science communicators (probably) have a moral obligation to maintain public trust in science. But they also have a moral obligation to be truthful in general and to defend scientific institutions from political attacks, so that their obligations with respect to endorsements are not so cut and dried. We can debate about the wisdom of specific endorsements, and we can disagree (as I take it we do) about whether every institution that is permitted to make an endorsement should do so in the present day. But the reasons at play are not going to be the same as in the case of teachers.
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 8:34 AM on September 19 [15 favorites]
For generations now the main job of the Teamsters has been to make everyone dislike unions.
posted by aramaic at 8:36 AM on September 19 [17 favorites]
posted by aramaic at 8:36 AM on September 19 [17 favorites]
I will never understand why so many union members vote for a party that's inherently anti-labor, but then I remember a friend of mine for years worked in a union, railed against unionized labor but was perfectly happy to accept the benefits of working with union protections. He didn't much like when I pointed out the hypocrisy of that.
posted by drewbage1847 at 8:51 AM on September 19 [7 favorites]
posted by drewbage1847 at 8:51 AM on September 19 [7 favorites]
The fact of the matter is for all the "it's the economy stupid" takes we hear if a candidate is not white that is the bigger factor. This is a deeply racist country.
“If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you.” - LBJ
posted by downtohisturtles at 8:55 AM on September 19 [16 favorites]
“If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you.” - LBJ
posted by downtohisturtles at 8:55 AM on September 19 [16 favorites]
I think credit goes to Tressie McMillan Cottom for the observation that whenever it seems puzzling that someone is acting against their economic interests in supporting Trump, it’s easy to understand when you realize they just see their interest in white supremacy as a higher priority.
posted by Horace Rumpole at 9:42 AM on September 19 [24 favorites]
posted by Horace Rumpole at 9:42 AM on September 19 [24 favorites]
Personally, I believe O'Brien is bucking for a position in Trump's cabinet. It's no secret that Trump is easy to manipulate, so those with grifting in mind have a lot of elbow room. I would imagine the leaders of the Teamsters would find it favorable to have one of their own as Sec of Labor, so of course they are going to go along with it.
posted by hairless ape at 9:57 AM on September 19 [1 favorite]
posted by hairless ape at 9:57 AM on September 19 [1 favorite]
It's not going to change any votes, and it may lower trust in good science.
Man, if scientists calling out a guy who suggested nuking a hurricane and injecting bleach lowers your trust in good science, I'm going to assume you didn't actually have any to begin with.
posted by Gygesringtone at 10:53 AM on September 19 [31 favorites]
Man, if scientists calling out a guy who suggested nuking a hurricane and injecting bleach lowers your trust in good science, I'm going to assume you didn't actually have any to begin with.
posted by Gygesringtone at 10:53 AM on September 19 [31 favorites]
May lower trust in good science? LOL ok
Endorsing the only candidate that actually trusts science is the only smart thing to do.
posted by tiny frying pan at 11:07 AM on September 19 [13 favorites]
Endorsing the only candidate that actually trusts science is the only smart thing to do.
posted by tiny frying pan at 11:07 AM on September 19 [13 favorites]
> if a candidate is not white that is the bigger factor. This is a deeply racist country.
> whenever it seems puzzling that someone is acting against their economic interests in supporting Trump, it’s easy to understand when you realize they just see their interest in white supremacy as a higher priority.
This is it, exactly. (And the same for misogyny & the fact that the candidate is a woman.)
Relevant readings on the history of deep-seated racism and misogyny in western world unions:
The union movement has been anti-Black from the beginning
The racist roots of "right to work"
Trade union reactions to women and their concerns
Fighting patriarchal white supremacy in unions
On Sexism in trade unions
posted by MiraK at 11:18 AM on September 19 [7 favorites]
> whenever it seems puzzling that someone is acting against their economic interests in supporting Trump, it’s easy to understand when you realize they just see their interest in white supremacy as a higher priority.
This is it, exactly. (And the same for misogyny & the fact that the candidate is a woman.)
Relevant readings on the history of deep-seated racism and misogyny in western world unions:
The union movement has been anti-Black from the beginning
The racist roots of "right to work"
Trade union reactions to women and their concerns
Fighting patriarchal white supremacy in unions
On Sexism in trade unions
posted by MiraK at 11:18 AM on September 19 [7 favorites]
Endorsing the only candidate that actually trusts science is the only smart thing to do.
From the (relatively short and I think worth reading) Scientific American Didn’t Need to Endorse Anybody, by Tom Nichols (who I find to be the most eloquent Trump basher out there):
"even if Scientific American’s editors felt that the threat to science and knowledge was so dire that they had to endorse a candidate, they did it the worst way possible. They could have made a case for electing Harris as a matter of science acting in self-defense, because Trump, who chafes at any version of science that does not serve him, plans to destroy the relationship between expertise and government by obliterating the independence of the government’s scientific institutions. This is an obvious danger, especially when Trump is consorting with kooks such as Laura Loomer and has floated bringing Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s crackpot circus into the government.
Instead, the magazine gave a standard-issue left-liberal endorsement that focused on health care, reproductive rights, gun safety, climate policy, technology policy, and the economy. Although science and data play their role in debates around such issues, most of the policy choices they present are not specifically scientific questions: In the end, almost all political questions are about values—and how voters think about risks and rewards. Science cannot answer those questions; it can only tell us about the likely consequences of our choices."
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 11:33 AM on September 19 [3 favorites]
From the (relatively short and I think worth reading) Scientific American Didn’t Need to Endorse Anybody, by Tom Nichols (who I find to be the most eloquent Trump basher out there):
"even if Scientific American’s editors felt that the threat to science and knowledge was so dire that they had to endorse a candidate, they did it the worst way possible. They could have made a case for electing Harris as a matter of science acting in self-defense, because Trump, who chafes at any version of science that does not serve him, plans to destroy the relationship between expertise and government by obliterating the independence of the government’s scientific institutions. This is an obvious danger, especially when Trump is consorting with kooks such as Laura Loomer and has floated bringing Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s crackpot circus into the government.
Instead, the magazine gave a standard-issue left-liberal endorsement that focused on health care, reproductive rights, gun safety, climate policy, technology policy, and the economy. Although science and data play their role in debates around such issues, most of the policy choices they present are not specifically scientific questions: In the end, almost all political questions are about values—and how voters think about risks and rewards. Science cannot answer those questions; it can only tell us about the likely consequences of our choices."
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 11:33 AM on September 19 [3 favorites]
health care, reproductive rights, gun safety, climate policy, technology policy, and the economy
I find trust in science to be integral to every single one of those.
posted by tiny frying pan at 11:39 AM on September 19 [16 favorites]
I find trust in science to be integral to every single one of those.
posted by tiny frying pan at 11:39 AM on September 19 [16 favorites]
Like...I don't think I have time to put things succinctly today but the government saying it's fine to deny abortion across the board but not knowing enough about medical science means letting women die because doctors can't do a d+c on a wanted pregnancy that is now non viable is one of the consequences of ignoring science and yes we could talk about how that's immoral and abortions should be allowed for any reason anyway but I'm much more concerned with how it's STUPID and climate change is the same, and on and on and on
posted by tiny frying pan at 11:43 AM on September 19 [12 favorites]
posted by tiny frying pan at 11:43 AM on September 19 [12 favorites]
What do we call this in social science / politics? It's not a poison pill, right? But what is it when the process which is something you value (labor organization) is corrupted to the core by things you don't like (racism)?
It's just white supremacy? Non-white knowledge and ways of being are intrinsically suspect and the baseline assumption is sloth and criminality? I'm not sure a more specific name is useful.
posted by ryanshepard at 11:46 AM on September 19 [2 favorites]
It's just white supremacy? Non-white knowledge and ways of being are intrinsically suspect and the baseline assumption is sloth and criminality? I'm not sure a more specific name is useful.
posted by ryanshepard at 11:46 AM on September 19 [2 favorites]
No misogyny is running strong as well.
I have a neighbor, He was born in Austria. Mother was Austrian, father was from Indonesia.
And people would ask him, "where are you from?". He would respond, "I am from Graz". "No, no, where are you from...?"
Horrible, stupid racism is not just the USA. It's everywhere. Not sure why. Maybe just a need to blame the others?
But, while I have lived a somewhat sheltered life, and probably know a dozen or so immigrants, they have all been pretty fucking awesome people. Not to mention all those "illegals" who are actually picking all the food everyone eats.
Never forget what the Statue of Liberty says...
'Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore,
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!'
That is America
posted by Windopaene at 12:07 PM on September 19 [4 favorites]
I have a neighbor, He was born in Austria. Mother was Austrian, father was from Indonesia.
And people would ask him, "where are you from?". He would respond, "I am from Graz". "No, no, where are you from...?"
Horrible, stupid racism is not just the USA. It's everywhere. Not sure why. Maybe just a need to blame the others?
But, while I have lived a somewhat sheltered life, and probably know a dozen or so immigrants, they have all been pretty fucking awesome people. Not to mention all those "illegals" who are actually picking all the food everyone eats.
Never forget what the Statue of Liberty says...
'Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore,
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!'
That is America
posted by Windopaene at 12:07 PM on September 19 [4 favorites]
Or used to be. The fantasy of America that I grew up with. And believed in.
And now, here we are.
posted by Windopaene at 12:11 PM on September 19 [3 favorites]
And now, here we are.
posted by Windopaene at 12:11 PM on September 19 [3 favorites]
Relevant readings on the history of deep-seated racism and misogyny in western world unions:
...
The racist roots of "right to work"
Without any comment on your larger point, this confuses me. Despite its name, "right to work" is anti-union policy as in the "right" to work without joining a union.
posted by Press Butt.on to Check at 12:23 PM on September 19 [2 favorites]
...
The racist roots of "right to work"
Without any comment on your larger point, this confuses me. Despite its name, "right to work" is anti-union policy as in the "right" to work without joining a union.
posted by Press Butt.on to Check at 12:23 PM on September 19 [2 favorites]
Without any comment on your larger point, this confuses me. Despite its name, "right to work" is anti-union policy as in the "right" to work without joining a union.
That is, in fact, what the link is about. Women of color are perhaps the group that sees the biggest increase in wages from unionization.
posted by hoyland at 12:29 PM on September 19 [4 favorites]
That is, in fact, what the link is about. Women of color are perhaps the group that sees the biggest increase in wages from unionization.
posted by hoyland at 12:29 PM on September 19 [4 favorites]
Windopaene, I think that fantasy still existed up until the Reagan / Jack Welch era of full enshitification. Once we progressed from "corporations are beneficial orgs that do good things for their employees and communities" to "corporations are horrible hellscapes run by sociopaths that fuck over anyone and anything just to squeeze out an extra buck for the billionaire class", that dream was over.
It probably also doesn't help that those same corporations have found that since their competition sucks on all levels just as badly, it's much more profitable to offer shoddy products with good marketing than it is to make good products. Customer service is now only available with a pricey monthly subscription, which can only be cancelled in person at the corporation's location of record, a tiny shack on the beach in Nauru.
posted by ensign_ricky at 12:31 PM on September 19 [3 favorites]
It probably also doesn't help that those same corporations have found that since their competition sucks on all levels just as badly, it's much more profitable to offer shoddy products with good marketing than it is to make good products. Customer service is now only available with a pricey monthly subscription, which can only be cancelled in person at the corporation's location of record, a tiny shack on the beach in Nauru.
posted by ensign_ricky at 12:31 PM on September 19 [3 favorites]
> I find trust in science to be integral to every single one of those.
Absolutely, but that isn't the question. The question is, did the Scientific American, speaking as a science org, have any authority on those political matters? It did not, in my opinion. Mr. Know It Some has cited some really good links and quotes to support the notion that unless the Scientific American is speaking as a science org and a scientific authority, it's overstepping and doing harm instead because it will now be seen (rightly) as a political organization instead of a scientific one, which reduces trust in science.
If I may offer an analogy which makes this easier to understand: what if, instead of the Scientific American taking sides on the political question of women's ownership of their uterus while speaking under their banner as a scientific org, we substitute a mothers' organization weighing in on scientific matters while speaking "as a mother"?
"As a mother, I think climate change is (or is not) real."
"As a mother, we should all be in favor of (or against) paid peer reviewers."
"As a mother, I firmly stand in support of this scientific study of the effects of adding chlorophyll to mouse diets."
It's laughable and silly, right? Well that's what the Scientific American sounds like when they take political stands on political issues.
Mothers don't have any expertise in these matters? Neither does the Scientific American have any expertise in politics.
If you can argue that science is fundamental to politics, I can argue that motherhood and the skills, stakes, and vested interests therein are fundamental to human-based topics of discussion such as climate change's impacts, wage justice, and which diets are best for human eating.
But that doesn't mean these mothers have any leg to stand on to speak credibly on these matters, regardless. Yes. Similarly, the Scientific American doesn't, either.
posted by MiraK at 1:13 PM on September 19 [2 favorites]
Absolutely, but that isn't the question. The question is, did the Scientific American, speaking as a science org, have any authority on those political matters? It did not, in my opinion. Mr. Know It Some has cited some really good links and quotes to support the notion that unless the Scientific American is speaking as a science org and a scientific authority, it's overstepping and doing harm instead because it will now be seen (rightly) as a political organization instead of a scientific one, which reduces trust in science.
If I may offer an analogy which makes this easier to understand: what if, instead of the Scientific American taking sides on the political question of women's ownership of their uterus while speaking under their banner as a scientific org, we substitute a mothers' organization weighing in on scientific matters while speaking "as a mother"?
"As a mother, I think climate change is (or is not) real."
"As a mother, we should all be in favor of (or against) paid peer reviewers."
"As a mother, I firmly stand in support of this scientific study of the effects of adding chlorophyll to mouse diets."
It's laughable and silly, right? Well that's what the Scientific American sounds like when they take political stands on political issues.
Mothers don't have any expertise in these matters? Neither does the Scientific American have any expertise in politics.
If you can argue that science is fundamental to politics, I can argue that motherhood and the skills, stakes, and vested interests therein are fundamental to human-based topics of discussion such as climate change's impacts, wage justice, and which diets are best for human eating.
But that doesn't mean these mothers have any leg to stand on to speak credibly on these matters, regardless. Yes. Similarly, the Scientific American doesn't, either.
posted by MiraK at 1:13 PM on September 19 [2 favorites]
The question is, did the Scientific American, speaking as a science org, have any authority on those political matters?
The thing is, the only reason these we see these as political matters and not scientific ones is because people are ignoring scientists. Scientist do in fact study: how health care policy effects individual and societal health, including reproductive health care policy, how policy effects the climate, and technology, and they WOULD study gun violence if they were legally allowed to in the US.
The analogy is not "as a mom here's my opinion about science" it's "as a mom, here's my opinion about something I have direct experience with".
posted by Gygesringtone at 1:25 PM on September 19 [8 favorites]
The thing is, the only reason these we see these as political matters and not scientific ones is because people are ignoring scientists. Scientist do in fact study: how health care policy effects individual and societal health, including reproductive health care policy, how policy effects the climate, and technology, and they WOULD study gun violence if they were legally allowed to in the US.
The analogy is not "as a mom here's my opinion about science" it's "as a mom, here's my opinion about something I have direct experience with".
posted by Gygesringtone at 1:25 PM on September 19 [8 favorites]
"Scientific American Didn’t Need to Endorse Anybody. A persuasive argument that the SciAm endorsement - though entirely correct - is counterproductive: It's not going to change any votes, and it may lower trust in good science."
Wait til you hear about that fella Einstein, totally damaged the credibility of science.
The people damaging "credibility of science" are the rumormongers, liars and people who purposefully misuse science to bolster their ridiculous anti-vax, windmill and other claims.
It's the scientists who engage in fraud in papers.
It's the replication crisis.
But having a political opinion and daring to take a stance? Let me tell you something. The people who will have a problem with science are the backward troglodytes who support Trump. The only people who think this is somehow "bold" are people who can't see everyone from AOC and Cheney endorsed her. I don't like it, but the fact is, it's a centrist institution. Morality should play a role in politics. Listen to Sean Carroll talk about the role of philosophy, or all the other scientists who were activists.
This is the horseshit that is "play race-blind in hiring, no dei" and other things. It's self interest based delusion. Sometimes it's right to take a stance. Could they have stayed silent? Could the editorial board have individually supported Kamala on their own without a collective endorsement? I guess. Was science ruined when they previously endorsed Clinton? Not anymore than already was (by the same people who threatened to cut funding for various studies the right-wing thinks is "unproductive" because *that* is how science works, only profitable enterprises for research, everything should get the boot).
Nah - idiots are gonna be idiots. Will it move the needle? Is it virtue signalling? IDK, maybe you're right on that, but the "shut up you're gonna make right-wingers and moderates hate science" is really a drop in the pool compared with at least trying to make a difference. If it can sway even a few people it's enough.
Would I feel the other way if they supported Trump? Come on, I trust science enough to know that's not even a possibility. The only "Scientific Journal" that would endorse Trump is "Mengele and Wakefield's Science for Homo Superior." and other grifters. THAT would actually harm credibility.
posted by symbioid at 1:27 PM on September 19 [8 favorites]
Wait til you hear about that fella Einstein, totally damaged the credibility of science.
The people damaging "credibility of science" are the rumormongers, liars and people who purposefully misuse science to bolster their ridiculous anti-vax, windmill and other claims.
It's the scientists who engage in fraud in papers.
It's the replication crisis.
But having a political opinion and daring to take a stance? Let me tell you something. The people who will have a problem with science are the backward troglodytes who support Trump. The only people who think this is somehow "bold" are people who can't see everyone from AOC and Cheney endorsed her. I don't like it, but the fact is, it's a centrist institution. Morality should play a role in politics. Listen to Sean Carroll talk about the role of philosophy, or all the other scientists who were activists.
This is the horseshit that is "play race-blind in hiring, no dei" and other things. It's self interest based delusion. Sometimes it's right to take a stance. Could they have stayed silent? Could the editorial board have individually supported Kamala on their own without a collective endorsement? I guess. Was science ruined when they previously endorsed Clinton? Not anymore than already was (by the same people who threatened to cut funding for various studies the right-wing thinks is "unproductive" because *that* is how science works, only profitable enterprises for research, everything should get the boot).
Nah - idiots are gonna be idiots. Will it move the needle? Is it virtue signalling? IDK, maybe you're right on that, but the "shut up you're gonna make right-wingers and moderates hate science" is really a drop in the pool compared with at least trying to make a difference. If it can sway even a few people it's enough.
Would I feel the other way if they supported Trump? Come on, I trust science enough to know that's not even a possibility. The only "Scientific Journal" that would endorse Trump is "Mengele and Wakefield's Science for Homo Superior." and other grifters. THAT would actually harm credibility.
posted by symbioid at 1:27 PM on September 19 [8 favorites]
on preview:
Sorry after reading more: Let's take this "stay in your lane" logic.
Are you a scientist? Then why are you stepping out of your lane telling a magazing about science what they should do? Stay in your lane, just like you say science should "stay in it's lane" if that's the case. The hypocrisy is fucking astounding. I'm not saying it's perfect, but to sit back while fascists push ideological bullshit is where we get human experiments (lord knows we've already done it "with" supposed "liberal free society" to poor people and people of color - there are plenty sins of science, the only way for evil to prosper is for good to do nothing? well... I guess if scientists just shut up and let the corporate scientists drive everything, and those with vested interest in sucking up to the powers that be regardless of their agenda as if science doesn't have a moral case at all times...)
Finally Tom Nichols is just another old school Republican who pushes the right-wing narrative. Sure he's anti-Trump. I see him on the Bulwark all the time. At first I thought he was John Nichols, then I'm like - this guy doesn't sound like the John Nichols I remember, and then whenever he comes on I realize. Ok he has cute political instinct, but I can still sniff his motives a mile away. He has an agenda, and it's not just "fighting Trump" He's about steering the narrative HIS way in the fight. and that way is "conservative".
We can make allies temporarily with these people, but in the end, they have an agenda, just as much or more so than the one that was explicit at least SciAm is explicit in what they believe and not try to hide behind some specious "I'm just a normal person with no agenda" when he clearly does.
posted by symbioid at 1:43 PM on September 19 [5 favorites]
Sorry after reading more: Let's take this "stay in your lane" logic.
Are you a scientist? Then why are you stepping out of your lane telling a magazing about science what they should do? Stay in your lane, just like you say science should "stay in it's lane" if that's the case. The hypocrisy is fucking astounding. I'm not saying it's perfect, but to sit back while fascists push ideological bullshit is where we get human experiments (lord knows we've already done it "with" supposed "liberal free society" to poor people and people of color - there are plenty sins of science, the only way for evil to prosper is for good to do nothing? well... I guess if scientists just shut up and let the corporate scientists drive everything, and those with vested interest in sucking up to the powers that be regardless of their agenda as if science doesn't have a moral case at all times...)
Finally Tom Nichols is just another old school Republican who pushes the right-wing narrative. Sure he's anti-Trump. I see him on the Bulwark all the time. At first I thought he was John Nichols, then I'm like - this guy doesn't sound like the John Nichols I remember, and then whenever he comes on I realize. Ok he has cute political instinct, but I can still sniff his motives a mile away. He has an agenda, and it's not just "fighting Trump" He's about steering the narrative HIS way in the fight. and that way is "conservative".
We can make allies temporarily with these people, but in the end, they have an agenda, just as much or more so than the one that was explicit at least SciAm is explicit in what they believe and not try to hide behind some specious "I'm just a normal person with no agenda" when he clearly does.
posted by symbioid at 1:43 PM on September 19 [5 favorites]
It's laughable and silly, right?
No? .... I mean, no. No, it doesn't strike me as laughable or silly. Why would you think it is?
More generally, I'm not sure what a "political question" is or what "political expertise" is supposed to be such that scientists shouldn't be weighing in on basically every political question. If a political question is a question about what policy to enact, then science is always going to be relevant, since science is how we know things, and knowledge is always relevant to policy questions. Political expertise seems to me (in my least cynical mood) something like expertise at crafting, building support for, passing, and enacting policies. But again, a big part of that will -- in a well-functioning society -- involve science, since policy-making should involve knowing something about the likely effects of the policy and building support for a policy should involve explaining what the effects are likely to be and how we know it.
I reject the idea that science is value neutral. And I'm not at all sure about the fact-value dichotomy. But even assuming that science is value neutral and that science cannot answer value questions of any sort, there is still an obvious reason for scientists of good will to endorse Harris. If you take the scientific facts as given, then different policy choices depend on our values. If we want to destroy ourselves, science can help us do it. But given the facts, there will be a determinate range of policy choices that are consistent with broadly good human values. I submit that today, when you hold the scientific facts fixed, essentially every policy position of the Republican Party is inconsistent with broadly good human values. Values so obvious and minimal that when you are familiar with the scientific facts, the Republican policy positions strike you as obviously morally wrong. Given their expertise with respect to the facts, a scientist doesn't have to also be an expert at values (presumably, that's not political experts, either) in order to endorse one candidate over the other in the present context. To see this clearly, consider what the policy differences look like with respect to climate change and ask yourself, "What values would I need to have for the Republican policies on climate change to be justified, given the facts?" Alternatively, ask yourself, "What kinds of value-differences would explain the policy differences between Democrats and Republicans, assuming everyone agrees as to the facts?" The result of this kind of exercise is to realize that either Republicans are completely at odds with the scientific facts -- in which case, surely science communicators are obligated to say so -- or they have such odious values as to be condemnable by anyone of even negligibly good will. The case of climate change is really no different than healthcare, gun control, abortion, immigration, taxation, etc. in this respect.
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 2:08 PM on September 19 [6 favorites]
No? .... I mean, no. No, it doesn't strike me as laughable or silly. Why would you think it is?
More generally, I'm not sure what a "political question" is or what "political expertise" is supposed to be such that scientists shouldn't be weighing in on basically every political question. If a political question is a question about what policy to enact, then science is always going to be relevant, since science is how we know things, and knowledge is always relevant to policy questions. Political expertise seems to me (in my least cynical mood) something like expertise at crafting, building support for, passing, and enacting policies. But again, a big part of that will -- in a well-functioning society -- involve science, since policy-making should involve knowing something about the likely effects of the policy and building support for a policy should involve explaining what the effects are likely to be and how we know it.
I reject the idea that science is value neutral. And I'm not at all sure about the fact-value dichotomy. But even assuming that science is value neutral and that science cannot answer value questions of any sort, there is still an obvious reason for scientists of good will to endorse Harris. If you take the scientific facts as given, then different policy choices depend on our values. If we want to destroy ourselves, science can help us do it. But given the facts, there will be a determinate range of policy choices that are consistent with broadly good human values. I submit that today, when you hold the scientific facts fixed, essentially every policy position of the Republican Party is inconsistent with broadly good human values. Values so obvious and minimal that when you are familiar with the scientific facts, the Republican policy positions strike you as obviously morally wrong. Given their expertise with respect to the facts, a scientist doesn't have to also be an expert at values (presumably, that's not political experts, either) in order to endorse one candidate over the other in the present context. To see this clearly, consider what the policy differences look like with respect to climate change and ask yourself, "What values would I need to have for the Republican policies on climate change to be justified, given the facts?" Alternatively, ask yourself, "What kinds of value-differences would explain the policy differences between Democrats and Republicans, assuming everyone agrees as to the facts?" The result of this kind of exercise is to realize that either Republicans are completely at odds with the scientific facts -- in which case, surely science communicators are obligated to say so -- or they have such odious values as to be condemnable by anyone of even negligibly good will. The case of climate change is really no different than healthcare, gun control, abortion, immigration, taxation, etc. in this respect.
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 2:08 PM on September 19 [6 favorites]
I considered making the Tom Nichols thing in The Atlantic part of the post, but ultimately didn't find it very persuasive.
Scientific American isn't undermining faith in expertise, Republicans are doing that.
Reagan said that trees cause air pollution and that 'government isn't the solution to the problem, government is the problem.' Twenty years later, the George W. Bush administration questioned the existence of shared objective reality, and twenty years on from that, demonstrably false statements like 'the 2020 election was stolen,' 'parents know more about education than teachers and school administrators do,' and 'there are only two genders' (those are my examples, you can pick your own) are reliable Republican applause lines.
Nichols is a smart guy who literally wrote a book called The Death of Expertise, and I'm guessing that he's well aware of all this--it just doesn't serve his argument. Trump's not a historical aberration within the Republican party, he's
posted by box at 2:13 PM on September 19 [9 favorites]
Scientific American isn't undermining faith in expertise, Republicans are doing that.
Reagan said that trees cause air pollution and that 'government isn't the solution to the problem, government is the problem.' Twenty years later, the George W. Bush administration questioned the existence of shared objective reality, and twenty years on from that, demonstrably false statements like 'the 2020 election was stolen,' 'parents know more about education than teachers and school administrators do,' and 'there are only two genders' (those are my examples, you can pick your own) are reliable Republican applause lines.
Nichols is a smart guy who literally wrote a book called The Death of Expertise, and I'm guessing that he's well aware of all this--it just doesn't serve his argument. Trump's not a historical aberration within the Republican party, he's
posted by box at 2:13 PM on September 19 [9 favorites]
Oops--he's the latest exemplar of a party that gave up on facts a long time ago.
posted by box at 2:22 PM on September 19 [5 favorites]
posted by box at 2:22 PM on September 19 [5 favorites]
In an era when Fascist Republicanists openly dismiss climate science and other demonstrations of empirical reality, whilst conspiring to censor and defund basic scientific research, I find it equally risible and odious that we scientists have to "stay in our lane". These Fascists can get bent.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 5:54 PM on September 19 [5 favorites]
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 5:54 PM on September 19 [5 favorites]
And by "get bent" I mean "get fucked".
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 6:02 PM on September 19 [3 favorites]
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 6:02 PM on September 19 [3 favorites]
Scientific American's mission statement:
Scientific American covers the most important and exciting research, ideas and knowledge in science, health, technology, the environment and society. It is committed to sharing trustworthy knowledge, enhancing our understanding of the world, and advancing social justice.
It's not purely a science organization if part of its mission is advancing social justice; and the assumption that Nichols makes- that Scientific American is meant to be a non-political publication- is incorrect. Because Scientific American is aware that science has never been apolitical: federal science funding in this country is at a 25 year low. Scientific rigor means nothing to half the populace, split on nearly perfect political lines. Scientific proof is happily discarded in the face of vibes- not values. When Nichols thinks he is discussing political values, he's more often talking about slogans: how can something be a principle if its moral argument is rudimentary and ill-formed; if the meaning changes based on who says it or to whom it is to be applied? At any rate, Tom Nichols' arguments always come from a position of privilege, where he can claim a golden age of apolitical science that never was because the inherent biases of the scientific past always represented his white, male, western point of view.
TL;DR: Tom Nichols is an ass who thinks saying things like "Indian food is terrible and we pretend it isn't" and telling women of color To "strap in, pally, because I've got plenty of it!" when they object to him telling women of color how to behave, is clever and amusing. His premise that science has been, and should remain, apolitical is faulty.
posted by oneirodynia at 9:12 PM on September 19 [13 favorites]
Scientific American covers the most important and exciting research, ideas and knowledge in science, health, technology, the environment and society. It is committed to sharing trustworthy knowledge, enhancing our understanding of the world, and advancing social justice.
It's not purely a science organization if part of its mission is advancing social justice; and the assumption that Nichols makes- that Scientific American is meant to be a non-political publication- is incorrect. Because Scientific American is aware that science has never been apolitical: federal science funding in this country is at a 25 year low. Scientific rigor means nothing to half the populace, split on nearly perfect political lines. Scientific proof is happily discarded in the face of vibes- not values. When Nichols thinks he is discussing political values, he's more often talking about slogans: how can something be a principle if its moral argument is rudimentary and ill-formed; if the meaning changes based on who says it or to whom it is to be applied? At any rate, Tom Nichols' arguments always come from a position of privilege, where he can claim a golden age of apolitical science that never was because the inherent biases of the scientific past always represented his white, male, western point of view.
TL;DR: Tom Nichols is an ass who thinks saying things like "Indian food is terrible and we pretend it isn't" and telling women of color To "strap in, pally, because I've got plenty of it!" when they object to him telling women of color how to behave, is clever and amusing. His premise that science has been, and should remain, apolitical is faulty.
posted by oneirodynia at 9:12 PM on September 19 [13 favorites]
It is illustrative to a child of the 1960s to learn how blatantly, unapologetically racist and sexist this country still is, 60 years later.
posted by panglos at 9:57 PM on September 19 [3 favorites]
posted by panglos at 9:57 PM on September 19 [3 favorites]
Naah. Not "still is". It went worse as the Republicans stoked it for a decade or two. We're having our Hitler moment. It *did* used to be better, in a lot (not all) of places. Hope we make it through.
posted by aleph at 4:51 AM on September 20 [1 favorite]
posted by aleph at 4:51 AM on September 20 [1 favorite]
And not to harp on this too much, but here are handful of recent episodes of a podcast put out by Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences where they talk to the authors\scientists about their research that was just published (there are also episodes about dinosaurs and fish making sound, etc):
Creating Culturally inclusive schools
How redlining affects biodiversity
Racial disparities and climate policy
Science studies this stuff.
posted by Gygesringtone at 7:27 AM on September 20 [5 favorites]
Creating Culturally inclusive schools
How redlining affects biodiversity
Racial disparities and climate policy
Science studies this stuff.
posted by Gygesringtone at 7:27 AM on September 20 [5 favorites]
Thanks for pointing out that Sci Am says one of its goals is "advancing social justice." To quote Dorothy Parker, "Tonstant Weader Fwowed up." Good science generally serves social justice, but moral judgement is not scientific.
I think that institutions like scientific organizations, journals, and universities should stay in their lane, because they have no comparative advantage in making moral judgements, and when they stray they damage their intellectual credibility. Having a full understanding of biology does not lead inexorably to any conclusion about the morality of abortion policy, nor does a proper analysis of segregation determine the "correct" approach to affirmative action. But if a scientific organization has a policy on abortion or affirmative action, their important scientific analysis is likely to be discounted as biased.
And individuals who are members of those organizations definitely can and should speak out on issues of concern, or join political organizations that do so.
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 10:37 AM on September 20
I think that institutions like scientific organizations, journals, and universities should stay in their lane, because they have no comparative advantage in making moral judgements, and when they stray they damage their intellectual credibility. Having a full understanding of biology does not lead inexorably to any conclusion about the morality of abortion policy, nor does a proper analysis of segregation determine the "correct" approach to affirmative action. But if a scientific organization has a policy on abortion or affirmative action, their important scientific analysis is likely to be discounted as biased.
And individuals who are members of those organizations definitely can and should speak out on issues of concern, or join political organizations that do so.
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 10:37 AM on September 20
If you can argue that science is fundamental to politics, I can argue that motherhood and the skills, stakes, and vested interests therein are fundamental to human-based topics of discussion such as climate change's impacts, wage justice, and which diets are best for human eating.
this but unironically
posted by Why Is The World In Love Again? at 11:37 AM on September 20 [2 favorites]
this but unironically
posted by Why Is The World In Love Again? at 11:37 AM on September 20 [2 favorites]
it's really funny to see people talking like SA is the National Academy of Sciences and not a publication aimed at the general public. real tell me you're not a scientist without telling me you're not a scientist hours in here.
posted by Why Is The World In Love Again? at 11:39 AM on September 20 [6 favorites]
posted by Why Is The World In Love Again? at 11:39 AM on September 20 [6 favorites]
Thanks for pointing out that Sci Am says one of its goals is "advancing social justice." To quote Dorothy Parker, "Tonstant Weader Fwowed up."
The point is that Scientific American is not pretending to be a disinterested organization. If that makes you sick, well, there are other, non popular science journals that will not be endorsing anyone.
posted by oneirodynia at 1:01 PM on September 20 [6 favorites]
The point is that Scientific American is not pretending to be a disinterested organization. If that makes you sick, well, there are other, non popular science journals that will not be endorsing anyone.
posted by oneirodynia at 1:01 PM on September 20 [6 favorites]
Having a full understanding of biology does not lead inexorably to any conclusion about the morality of abortion policy, nor does a proper analysis of segregation determine the "correct" approach to affirmative action.
You know what does lead inexorably to any conclusion about the morality of abortion policy? Studying the effects of abortion policy on the health of women, children, and populations, which is a thing that some scientists do. I think you're missing the trees for the forest here. Like nobody is saying "I SCIENCE!" and then demanding that you uncritically accept their opinion. They're saying "I did some science, and evidence points to this particular policy reducing infant and maternal fatalities." and then providing the evidence so that other people can look at it to evaluate it's validity.
posted by Gygesringtone at 3:02 PM on September 20 [7 favorites]
You know what does lead inexorably to any conclusion about the morality of abortion policy? Studying the effects of abortion policy on the health of women, children, and populations, which is a thing that some scientists do. I think you're missing the trees for the forest here. Like nobody is saying "I SCIENCE!" and then demanding that you uncritically accept their opinion. They're saying "I did some science, and evidence points to this particular policy reducing infant and maternal fatalities." and then providing the evidence so that other people can look at it to evaluate it's validity.
posted by Gygesringtone at 3:02 PM on September 20 [7 favorites]
For me the issue is that if you study science and pair it with some understanding of the humanities and ethics, it’s impossible to be a Republican. They are fucking dumbasses, assholes, or both. We can’t even talk about the best practical ways to handle climate change because there are these dicks out there with no clue how the world works and no compassion for their fellow human. Here in the south at least, people in my orbit who are Republicans are definitely dumber or just hella racist and sexist. It’s fucking exhausting trying to appeal to them and “undecided voters”.
posted by caviar2d2 at 4:04 PM on September 20 [1 favorite]
posted by caviar2d2 at 4:04 PM on September 20 [1 favorite]
You all changed my mind, thank you!
posted by MiraK at 10:06 AM on September 21 [3 favorites]
posted by MiraK at 10:06 AM on September 21 [3 favorites]
I don't think Scientific American staying in their lane would work. I think they did long-term damage to their intellectual credibility when they published an article by HIV-denialist Peter Duesberg, despite the article having nothing to do with AIDS, and despite the editors at the time explaining they were just staying in their lane. I certainly still remember the incident some two decades hence. The endorsement makes me think there's been a real shift in the magazine, between that and them no longer publishing a regular column by missing stair Michael Shermer I may just start reading it again.
posted by mscibing at 4:23 PM on September 21
posted by mscibing at 4:23 PM on September 21
it's really funny to see people talking like SA is the National Academy of Sciences and not a publication aimed at the general public
No one is doing that here.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 10:45 PM on September 21 [1 favorite]
No one is doing that here.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 10:45 PM on September 21 [1 favorite]
No one is doing that here.
i'm not sure how you read the comments about SA "staying in its lane" or "speaking as a science org" and came away thinking no one is doing that.
posted by Why Is The World In Love Again? at 11:04 PM on September 21 [1 favorite]
i'm not sure how you read the comments about SA "staying in its lane" or "speaking as a science org" and came away thinking no one is doing that.
posted by Why Is The World In Love Again? at 11:04 PM on September 21 [1 favorite]
Not seeing the connection you're trying to make between those statements, sorry. Best of luck with it.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 2:05 AM on September 23
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 2:05 AM on September 23
I am fully aware that SciAm is an independent publication and can do whatever it wants. (However, I only recently learned that it's owned by a for-profit private company.) The same is true of universities and independent think tanks. But organizations have reputations, and their decisions affect that reputation. One approach is to leverage their reputation for political purposes; working for "social justice" is certainly political, even if it's not explicitly partisan. I understand the argument for independent organizations changing their normal approach when times are not normal, and we are not in normal times. There's certainly some potential benefit from their endorsement of Harris.
But there's also a potential cost: The lack of trust. The next time they publish an article about the health effects of abortion access, I'll certainly wonder just a little bit if their editorial position influenced that article. And that effect will be even stronger for readers who oppose abortion rights.
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 8:08 AM on September 23
But there's also a potential cost: The lack of trust. The next time they publish an article about the health effects of abortion access, I'll certainly wonder just a little bit if their editorial position influenced that article. And that effect will be even stronger for readers who oppose abortion rights.
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 8:08 AM on September 23
The next time they publish an article about the health effects of abortion access, I'll certainly wonder just a little bit if their editorial position influenced that article.
just go full mask-off and admit you don't really care about what kind of scientific evidence would be presented in such an article.
posted by Why Is The World In Love Again? at 7:19 PM on September 23 [1 favorite]
just go full mask-off and admit you don't really care about what kind of scientific evidence would be presented in such an article.
posted by Why Is The World In Love Again? at 7:19 PM on September 23 [1 favorite]
By the way, when politics does come up in professional communication among scientists—and it does, and not just in social science journals, the tone is generally not mincing around to create an impression of false objectivity or concern trolling about some imagined third party, but laying out evidence and stating conclusions and allowing your peers to scrutinize your reasoning. Make of that what you will.
posted by Why Is The World In Love Again? at 10:53 PM on September 23 [1 favorite]
posted by Why Is The World In Love Again? at 10:53 PM on September 23 [1 favorite]
I'm glad that you are able to disregard the political leanings of doctors and scientists who have expressed political positions when judging the reliability of their scientific positions. I'm impressed that you have no preconceptions when you, for example, read the information presented by the medical experts at the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 11:46 AM on September 24
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 11:46 AM on September 24
I mean, I value the opinions of my brother that isn't a jackass more than my brother who is in fact, a jackass's.
Similarly, I trust the opinions of science journalists who have shown themselves to be trustworthy more than transparently political organizations that don't actually link to any research on their "Latest research and opinions" page and whose partners are all religious organizations.
I don't think that's really the "Gotcha!" that you think it is.
posted by Gygesringtone at 1:01 PM on September 24
Similarly, I trust the opinions of science journalists who have shown themselves to be trustworthy more than transparently political organizations that don't actually link to any research on their "Latest research and opinions" page and whose partners are all religious organizations.
I don't think that's really the "Gotcha!" that you think it is.
posted by Gygesringtone at 1:01 PM on September 24
« Older BatCam offers glimpse into secret life of... | Do people act ethically out of true morality or... Newer »
posted by meinvt at 6:04 AM on September 19 [6 favorites]