Scientific American Backs a Presidential Candidate

[Revoltingest]

Would it make more sense for them to back the candidate with an anti-science agenda?

It makes perfect sense for a science magazine to fight against scientific illiteracy. I don't want to see my dopey country get even dopier, either.

Defending Biden?
Were it my mag, I'd support neither illiterate.
They should've drafted @exchemist & me to run.
(He'd be VP cuz of the birtherism issue.)

 

[Revoltingest]

Science doesn't have a political bias. Science only becomes "political" when people deny it. In this sense, if it weren't "biased" it would cease to be scientific.

Ideally it doesn't, but when it's practiced by humans,
politics can indeed infect it. I'm thinking of earthquake
predictions in Italy, & Ameristan's genetic research, &
space exploration.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Please document unethical dishonest assertions.

Human nature documents that.

 

[Twilight Hue]

"I think it'll start getting cooler" ARGH !!!!!!!

Maybe the funniest line ever, less than a minute into this short video..

Winter hasn't started yet.

 

[Father Heathen]

Defending Biden?

Nope. Defending science, which means a vote for Biden given how anti-science the Republicans are.

 

[Father Heathen]

Its called buying the endorsement.

Wonder how much they paid executive staff editors and managers over there to run it?

Do you have a source that validates this claim? Not that it matters; no one who values science would vote for Trump anyway.

 

[Father Heathen]

Could of fooled me.

It doesn't take much.

 

[Twilight Hue]

It doesn't take much.

*grin*

 

[exchemist]

Political bias. What could go wrong?

There is no evidence at all that Scientific American has a political bias. Or, if you you think you have some, please produce it.

However, when you have such a uniquely bad president, who goes out of his way to dismiss science and to embrace phony notions whenever it suits him, it forces previously non-political institutions to take sides. That is what, as the editorial makes clear, applies here.

Trump attacks science. By doing that he damages the country he was elected to serve. That is their point.

 

[Twilight Hue]

There is no evidence at all that Scientific American has a political bias. Or, if you you think you have some, please produce it.

However, when you have such a uniquely bad president, who goes out of his way to dismiss science and to embrace phony notions whenever it suits him, it forces previously non-political institutions to take sides. That is what, as the editorial makes clear, applies here.

Trump attacks science. By doing that he damages the country he was elected to serve. That is their point.

I see. Endorsing an incoherent, confused, and forgetful candidate to lead a nation is practicing sound science.

Right.

 

[Spirit of Light]

I see. Endorsing an incoherent, confused, and forgetful candidate to lead a nation is practicing sound science.

Right.

Not that my voìce matter in American politic, but is a "stable genius" who do not believe in science any better then Biden

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Ironic....a magazine backs a candidate who
could never even read the magazine.

It's not ironic, given that it's a two horse race. They're backing the not-Trump.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I see. Endorsing an incoherent, confused, and forgetful candidate to lead a nation is practicing sound science.

Right.

You think them backing a candidate is scientific? Rather, I think they are subjectively judging the candidates on their impact...positive or negative...on the scientific community.

It seems pretty simple, really, but obfuscation appears the new normal in some quarters.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

What a coincidence Richard Bertrand Spencer the American neo-Nazi also endorsed Joe Biden.
Neo Nazi Richard Spencer Disavows Trump, Pledges Allegiance to Biden

You think that's noteworthy?
Okay...what do you see as the motivations involved and how is that noteworthy?

 

[Twilight Hue]

You think them backing a candidate is scientific? Rather, I think they are subjectively judging the candidates on their impact...positive or negative...on the scientific community.

It seems pretty simple, really, but obfuscation appears the new normal in some quarters.

Suddenly its all based on emotional responses from being 'attacked' so one must now go the political route?

Its bias all right. Otherwise it would continue on unabated as always with no concerns by just sticking with scientific subjects and not bothered by such distraction and nonsense.

 

[exchemist]

I see. Endorsing an incoherent, confused, and forgetful candidate to lead a nation is practicing sound science.

Right.

Biden, unlike Trump, does not have a record of attacking science and promoting wacky theories. His campaign stance makes clear he listens to science, both on Covid 19 and on climate change. There is every reason to expect a Biden presidency to restore rationality to American government. However old he may be, it is clear he is rational.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Suddenly its all based on emotional responses from being 'attacked' so one must now go the political route?

Its bias all right. Otherwise it would continue on unabated as always with no concerns by just sticking with scientific subjects and not bothered by such distraction and nonsense.

Where do you think this 'bias' comes from?
Why have they decided to comment?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Trump is constantly belittling Science and scientists.
Turkeys do not vote for Christmas.
QED

 

[Secret Chief]

Why do people keep saying Trump is a moron? This is his latest science-based insight into covid:

“With time it goes away. And you’ll develop like a herd mentality. It’s going to be herd developed, and that’s going to happen. That will all happen.”

A herd mentality?

What the...

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Political bias. What could go wrong?

Scientific American has always done opinion pieces for as long as I can remember. They're big into encouraging positions that are in line with both an ethical stance and an understanding of the relevant science.