Scientific American sadly crossed the line into activism (and not even considered activism) some time ago. I don't know if you followed the controversy when they published a piece condemning a renowned ant scientist for referring to ants as living in 'colonies' and using terms such as 'the normal distribution'? (All publications make mistakes. But most damning to me is that when this blew up they doubled down).
Aside from that, this is a great piece. I understand it is tempting for scientists to leverage their esteem to push causes they believe in, but we are all better off if we're clear about what science tells us, and what it doesn't.
Wow, that E. O. Wilson piece needs to be read to be believed - the normal distribution is racist? Suggesting that any differences between humans can be genetic is racist?
I don't disagree with any of this. Just one point: to cite the France/green - Gernany/brown on the emissions map is to accept it on its own terms. The case against nuclear is about risk, which that map doesn't pick up. Nor does it factor in energy security anywhere (a plus for German and Polish coal). I happen to agree that it was madness to phase out German nuclear generation, but the map doesn't account for the full argument.
I read the Sci Am piece not as commentary on the protestors' vs university administrators' policy positions, but on the effectiveness of their tactics. Analysis of tactics seems within the realm of social science, and I'm not against including social scientists as scientists.
I'm afraid I disagree quite strongly on this. I agree that the article can be viewed as social science, but I have a feeling that if everything is science then nothing is science. And I think we have to be very careful about where that can lead us. In particular, as Hadley Freeman argues here https://unherd.com/2024/05/why-the-left-failed-on-october-7/ I think a lot of the campus antisemitism (and I'm absolutely not saying that everyone on the protest side is antisemitic) arises from fashionable theories from academia about hierarchies of privilege. In an extreme form can lead to people arguing things like "Jews can never be victims, because any violence against them represents underprivileged people fighting back" (and I don't think that's mainstream, but I've certainly seen people with fancy titles making arguments like this on Twitter).
I completely agree with the spirit of your comment and the link and would not call theories about hierarchies of privilege science. From the outset, the existence of antisemitism should have been taken as data falsifying those hypotheses. I just think that's not what this particular Sci Am article was about (with the clickbait headline giving the wrong impression about the substance).
Agree with your general point. On the specifics of Scientific American, though, it's clearly been aiming for some years to align its editorial line with what one could broadly call, in the US, the liberal left. Possibly it feels there are more readers there than among the gradually dying physical magazine-buying less liberal in-betweeners/right wingers. There are plenty of examples of articles to make one groan "shouldn't this be about science?" Seems like there's just one more now.
I haven't been following Scientific American that closely but that fits with things I've read, for sure. Nature endorsing Biden is another interesting one, I think: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02852-x
Oh for sure, I'm not saying I disagree with it, I think it was just interesting that they took the step to do that (I think for the first time). I'd also be interested to know whether they do so again and in future elections - I think there's a sense among COVID-cautious people that Biden has been a disappointment, for example, even if it's not hard to imagine the alternative would have been worse!
Completely agree. But this is the world now. Every corporation, institution, organisation, football governing body, seems to feel the need to have a take (do something) on the latest big global event.
No doubt pressurised by deranged activists and their 'silence is violence' motto. And most of their takes are usually pig ignorant of history and context. So long as they've spoken out, they feel they've done their bit.
Look at how the medical establishment (from the journals, to the charities, to the national bodies) in thrall to bullying and censorious activists, have promoted gender ideology and supported the medicalisation of troubled kids, despite these being evidence free interventions. I'm afraid far too many institutions have forgotten their mission and had their minds warped and capitulated to the mob. It simply serves to divide us further and weakens the standing of experts.
Scientific American sadly crossed the line into activism (and not even considered activism) some time ago. I don't know if you followed the controversy when they published a piece condemning a renowned ant scientist for referring to ants as living in 'colonies' and using terms such as 'the normal distribution'? (All publications make mistakes. But most damning to me is that when this blew up they doubled down).
https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=6202
Aside from that, this is a great piece. I understand it is tempting for scientists to leverage their esteem to push causes they believe in, but we are all better off if we're clear about what science tells us, and what it doesn't.
Oh yes, I'd forgotten about that ant thing, that was wild.
Wow, that E. O. Wilson piece needs to be read to be believed - the normal distribution is racist? Suggesting that any differences between humans can be genetic is racist?
I don't disagree with any of this. Just one point: to cite the France/green - Gernany/brown on the emissions map is to accept it on its own terms. The case against nuclear is about risk, which that map doesn't pick up. Nor does it factor in energy security anywhere (a plus for German and Polish coal). I happen to agree that it was madness to phase out German nuclear generation, but the map doesn't account for the full argument.
That's fair, it's only capturing one dimension of a multi-dimensional argument - albeit an important one.
I read the Sci Am piece not as commentary on the protestors' vs university administrators' policy positions, but on the effectiveness of their tactics. Analysis of tactics seems within the realm of social science, and I'm not against including social scientists as scientists.
I'm afraid I disagree quite strongly on this. I agree that the article can be viewed as social science, but I have a feeling that if everything is science then nothing is science. And I think we have to be very careful about where that can lead us. In particular, as Hadley Freeman argues here https://unherd.com/2024/05/why-the-left-failed-on-october-7/ I think a lot of the campus antisemitism (and I'm absolutely not saying that everyone on the protest side is antisemitic) arises from fashionable theories from academia about hierarchies of privilege. In an extreme form can lead to people arguing things like "Jews can never be victims, because any violence against them represents underprivileged people fighting back" (and I don't think that's mainstream, but I've certainly seen people with fancy titles making arguments like this on Twitter).
I completely agree with the spirit of your comment and the link and would not call theories about hierarchies of privilege science. From the outset, the existence of antisemitism should have been taken as data falsifying those hypotheses. I just think that's not what this particular Sci Am article was about (with the clickbait headline giving the wrong impression about the substance).
Agree with your general point. On the specifics of Scientific American, though, it's clearly been aiming for some years to align its editorial line with what one could broadly call, in the US, the liberal left. Possibly it feels there are more readers there than among the gradually dying physical magazine-buying less liberal in-betweeners/right wingers. There are plenty of examples of articles to make one groan "shouldn't this be about science?" Seems like there's just one more now.
I haven't been following Scientific American that closely but that fits with things I've read, for sure. Nature endorsing Biden is another interesting one, I think: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02852-x
Though I think Nature sets out its case for why pretty comprehensively, and one would struggle to say "oh this isn't a matter of SCIENCE".
Oh for sure, I'm not saying I disagree with it, I think it was just interesting that they took the step to do that (I think for the first time). I'd also be interested to know whether they do so again and in future elections - I think there's a sense among COVID-cautious people that Biden has been a disappointment, for example, even if it's not hard to imagine the alternative would have been worse!
Completely agree. But this is the world now. Every corporation, institution, organisation, football governing body, seems to feel the need to have a take (do something) on the latest big global event.
No doubt pressurised by deranged activists and their 'silence is violence' motto. And most of their takes are usually pig ignorant of history and context. So long as they've spoken out, they feel they've done their bit.
Look at how the medical establishment (from the journals, to the charities, to the national bodies) in thrall to bullying and censorious activists, have promoted gender ideology and supported the medicalisation of troubled kids, despite these being evidence free interventions. I'm afraid far too many institutions have forgotten their mission and had their minds warped and capitulated to the mob. It simply serves to divide us further and weakens the standing of experts.