46 ms·

At this point is there anybody who reads this journal or watches the news regularly who doesn't have an opinion on the situation? I really dislike how it feel

by toolz 6y ago

At this point is there anybody who reads this journal or watches the news regularly who doesn't have an opinion on the situation? I really dislike how it feels scientists are positioning themselves into politics more and more. I have less and less confidence that journals are attempting to describe and report without bias. Maybe it's because I hadn't read anything but tech related white papers pre-covid, but reading a ton of research during covid really lowered my expectations for the standard to which publishing scientists hold themselves to.

throwaway8581 6y ago
This is the same "science" magazine that recently ran a cover story arguing that transwomen don't have a massive advantage in women's sports.
- 8bitsrule 6y ago
  Scientific American is one of the most-respected science magazines for the intelligent layperson (non-professional) and has been for close to two centuries. When 13,000+ scientists publicly get on-board with something, people had damned-well better pay attention. If you disagree, you'd better have some extremely convincing evidence.
  - throwaway8581 6y ago
    High school boys routinely perform better than professional female athletes.
    - edanm 6y ago
      I get where you're coming from, and I'm not sure how I feel about this myself. As far as I understand it, the view proposed by people who think that trans women don't have an advantage only applies in cases where the trans women have been taking various drugs, which e.g. lower testosterone. This would at least somewhat mitigate how much of an advantage someone who was male at birth has over someone who was female at birth. That also makes your counterargument (high school boys perform better than pro female athletes) less relevant - I think that everyone agrees that in most cases, males without any hormone changes will perform better than females in various female activities. As for whether the supplementation to cause a transition from male to female is sufficient to "overcome" the default biological advantage males have over females - I think that's a valid question, but that's exactly what scientists publishing in journals are trying to do. If we dismiss that ahead of time, then how will we ever know the truth?
Impassionata 6y ago
This is what people were saying as the climate emergency set in. Incredible.
- Afforess 6y ago
  And I thought zombie movies were so unrealistic. Truth is stranger than fiction.
tubularhells 6y ago
If religious fucks can position themselves in politics, so can scientists.
- dang 6y ago
  We've re-banned this account for repeatedly breaking the site guidelines and violating the intended spirit of the site. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
chillfox 6y ago
Well, to be fair, politics trampled all over their field and trying to be above that has got them nowhere. If a mud fight erupts around you then you can either try to ignore it with zero chance of winning or you can join it with a chance to win. Either way you will come out covered in mud.
lupire 6y ago
It's not a new thing: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%E2%80%93Szil%C3%A1rd_letter https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%E2%80%93Szil%C3%A1r...
kergonath 6y ago
> I really dislike how it feels scientists are positioning themselves into politics more and more. When you are aware of a major emergency coming our collective way, it is your duty to try and avoid it or mitigate its consequences. Any other behaviour would be unethical. > I have less and less confidence that journals are attempting to describe and report without bias. If you are talking about mainstream media, then fair enough. They most often suck at reporting science. If you are talking about scientific journals, then at least I haven’t seen a major shift in “subjectivity”. Bearing in mind that any piece of writing is unavoidably subjective by nature. Science does not depend on individual scientists being perfectly objective people. > Maybe it's because I hadn't read anything but tech related white papers pre-covid, but reading a ton of research during covid really lowered my expectations for the standard to which publishing scientists hold themselves to. This has always been the case (ignoring the manure in predatory journal and obvious résumé padding). One article in itself is meaningless. Something can be considered probable if it has been validated separately by independent people. In case of global warming, an awful lot has been. If you want to gauge the opinion of experts in a given field, it is more useful to read reviews or monographs than articles, which are always going to be limited in scope.
- readflaggedcomm 6y ago
  >Any other behaviour would be unethical. It would be ethical to make data sets public and verifiable to eliminate questionable reproducibility.
  - kergonath 6y ago
    They are several well-known public datasets. What makes you think this is a problem?
    - toolz 6y ago
      it is definitely a problem, not with all research, but there is plenty of high profile research that has never released their data. The UA study that gets cited so much for showing the U.S. has effectively the highest mass gun killing events in the world, for example, never released their dataset. This is a study that was referenced by the president, even.

by toolz 6y ago

throwaway8581 6y ago

This is the same "science" magazine that recently ran a cover story arguing that transwomen don't have a massive advantage in women's sports.

8bitsrule 6y ago
Scientific American is one of the most-respected science magazines for the intelligent layperson (non-professional) and has been for close to two centuries. When 13,000+ scientists publicly get on-board with something, people had damned-well better pay attention. If you disagree, you'd better have some extremely convincing evidence.
- throwaway8581 6y ago
  High school boys routinely perform better than professional female athletes.
  - edanm 6y ago
    I get where you're coming from, and I'm not sure how I feel about this myself. As far as I understand it, the view proposed by people who think that trans women don't have an advantage only applies in cases where the trans women have been taking various drugs, which e.g. lower testosterone. This would at least somewhat mitigate how much of an advantage someone who was male at birth has over someone who was female at birth. That also makes your counterargument (high school boys perform better than pro female athletes) less relevant - I think that everyone agrees that in most cases, males without any hormone changes will perform better than females in various female activities. As for whether the supplementation to cause a transition from male to female is sufficient to "overcome" the default biological advantage males have over females - I think that's a valid question, but that's exactly what scientists publishing in journals are trying to do. If we dismiss that ahead of time, then how will we ever know the truth?

Impassionata 6y ago

This is what people were saying as the climate emergency set in. Incredible.

Afforess 6y ago
And I thought zombie movies were so unrealistic. Truth is stranger than fiction.

tubularhells 6y ago

If religious fucks can position themselves in politics, so can scientists.

dang 6y ago
We've re-banned this account for repeatedly breaking the site guidelines and violating the intended spirit of the site. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

chillfox 6y ago

Well, to be fair, politics trampled all over their field and trying to be above that has got them nowhere. If a mud fight erupts around you then you can either try to ignore it with zero chance of winning or you can join it with a chance to win. Either way you will come out covered in mud.

lupire 6y ago

It's not a new thing: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%E2%80%93Szil%C3%A1rd_letter https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%E2%80%93Szil%C3%A1r...

kergonath 6y ago

> I really dislike how it feels scientists are positioning themselves into politics more and more. When you are aware of a major emergency coming our collective way, it is your duty to try and avoid it or mitigate its consequences. Any other behaviour would be unethical. > I have less and less confidence that journals are attempting to describe and report without bias. If you are talking about mainstream media, then fair enough. They most often suck at reporting science. If you are talking about scientific journals, then at least I haven’t seen a major shift in “subjectivity”. Bearing in mind that any piece of writing is unavoidably subjective by nature. Science does not depend on individual scientists being perfectly objective people. > Maybe it's because I hadn't read anything but tech related white papers pre-covid, but reading a ton of research during covid really lowered my expectations for the standard to which publishing scientists hold themselves to. This has always been the case (ignoring the manure in predatory journal and obvious résumé padding). One article in itself is meaningless. Something can be considered probable if it has been validated separately by independent people. In case of global warming, an awful lot has been. If you want to gauge the opinion of experts in a given field, it is more useful to read reviews or monographs than articles, which are always going to be limited in scope.

readflaggedcomm 6y ago
>Any other behaviour would be unethical. It would be ethical to make data sets public and verifiable to eliminate questionable reproducibility.
- kergonath 6y ago
  They are several well-known public datasets. What makes you think this is a problem?
  - toolz 6y ago
    it is definitely a problem, not with all research, but there is plenty of high profile research that has never released their data. The UA study that gets cited so much for showing the U.S. has effectively the highest mass gun killing events in the world, for example, never released their dataset. This is a study that was referenced by the president, even.