5 ms·

“If science and academia become ideological endeavours,” he says, “it’s going to be hard for them to survive.”” The irony of this closing sentence being about

by avazhi 2y ago

“If science and academia become ideological endeavours,” he says, “it’s going to be hard for them to survive.”” The irony of this closing sentence being about 5 paragraphs below a paragraph praising Harris and bashing Trump was noticed by, apparently, nobody at Nature. To be clear, I’m not a fan of Trump and I’ve never voted for him, but surely Nature should just stay out of explicit endorsements and bashing of one or the other political side if they are at all concerned about science becoming an ‘ideological endeavour’. It’s borderline insane to me that they would engage in blatant partisanship right after extolling the value of science at least APPEARING to be politically neutral.

Log_out_ 2y ago
How could science, a collaborative international endeavour in most fields survive and thrive with a isolationist government ?
- melagonster 2y ago
  In fact, for scientists, whether or not to believe in global climate change is a very clear dividing line. Essentially, the existence of climate change is a scientific consensus, and denying its existence is equivalent to rejecting science... But I also want to point out that Nature has different political views from scientists: they want more research funding, which makes sense for a publisher that profits from government research funding worldwide.
  - Log_out_ 2y ago
    What is there to believe in observable reality ? The debate is over, whats left is storms and refugees and idiots who believe that a messagebringing shaman in a lab coat has the power to revert bad news or other idiots that belief that propagating a fast &repent cult will undo the bad news. Meanwhile the news is just bad wether we refuse delivery or won't .
sriram_malhar 2y ago
I disagree 100% in this specific case. The Republican Party is choosing to deny climate change, to root out the EPA, to get rid of the NOAA, of all things. This is a cult whose brains have been seized, like in mad cow disease. It must be rooted out. EVERY science publication should come out and do an explicit disendorsement of Trump and the entire party, even if they don't endorse KH.
- avazhi 2y ago
  You're missing the point. Everything you said could be true, but it does no good for Nature or any other ostensibly neutral and apolitical scientific organisations to make express political endorsements. Scientists and others who regularly read Nature don't need Nature to tell them who to vote for, nor is Nature going to change their view one way or the other; and by the same token, the very people Nature might like to imagine it could persuade to vote for Harris are the very last people who would ever read a Nature feature article about Federal science funding. But those people - the ones who would never read this kind of article voluntarily and for information's sake - will absolutely latch onto the fact that Nature is making an explicit Harris endorsement and bashing Trump, and this will be irrefutable evidence that science, scientists, and the scientific gatekeepers are all beholden to 'the Left'. Thus, Trump voters will not unreasonably see any and all scientific conclusions as government-sponsored lies and all scientific outputs as somewhere along the spectrum of mind control nanobot devices. In short there is absolutely no reason for Nature to be expressly partisan, and every reason for it NOT to be. It's bad enough that a sizable portion of the American public think 5G is reading their minds and that the US government is somehow orchestrating hurricanes - giving them actual fact evidence that the industry is biased against them just ensures they'll never listen to anything that industry says (Exhibit A: Vaccines). There's just no upside to Nature doing this.
  - exe34 2y ago
    this is the classic disempowering rhetoric that you should not talk about politics and religion - the two biggest forces in society that will screw your life and that of your children the most if you let them.

by avazhi 2y ago

Log_out_ 2y ago

How could science, a collaborative international endeavour in most fields survive and thrive with a isolationist government ?

melagonster 2y ago
In fact, for scientists, whether or not to believe in global climate change is a very clear dividing line. Essentially, the existence of climate change is a scientific consensus, and denying its existence is equivalent to rejecting science... But I also want to point out that Nature has different political views from scientists: they want more research funding, which makes sense for a publisher that profits from government research funding worldwide.
- Log_out_ 2y ago
  What is there to believe in observable reality ? The debate is over, whats left is storms and refugees and idiots who believe that a messagebringing shaman in a lab coat has the power to revert bad news or other idiots that belief that propagating a fast &repent cult will undo the bad news. Meanwhile the news is just bad wether we refuse delivery or won't .

sriram_malhar 2y ago

I disagree 100% in this specific case. The Republican Party is choosing to deny climate change, to root out the EPA, to get rid of the NOAA, of all things. This is a cult whose brains have been seized, like in mad cow disease. It must be rooted out. EVERY science publication should come out and do an explicit disendorsement of Trump and the entire party, even if they don't endorse KH.

avazhi 2y ago
You're missing the point. Everything you said could be true, but it does no good for Nature or any other ostensibly neutral and apolitical scientific organisations to make express political endorsements. Scientists and others who regularly read Nature don't need Nature to tell them who to vote for, nor is Nature going to change their view one way or the other; and by the same token, the very people Nature might like to imagine it could persuade to vote for Harris are the very last people who would ever read a Nature feature article about Federal science funding. But those people - the ones who would never read this kind of article voluntarily and for information's sake - will absolutely latch onto the fact that Nature is making an explicit Harris endorsement and bashing Trump, and this will be irrefutable evidence that science, scientists, and the scientific gatekeepers are all beholden to 'the Left'. Thus, Trump voters will not unreasonably see any and all scientific conclusions as government-sponsored lies and all scientific outputs as somewhere along the spectrum of mind control nanobot devices. In short there is absolutely no reason for Nature to be expressly partisan, and every reason for it NOT to be. It's bad enough that a sizable portion of the American public think 5G is reading their minds and that the US government is somehow orchestrating hurricanes - giving them actual fact evidence that the industry is biased against them just ensures they'll never listen to anything that industry says (Exhibit A: Vaccines). There's just no upside to Nature doing this.
- exe34 2y ago
  this is the classic disempowering rhetoric that you should not talk about politics and religion - the two biggest forces in society that will screw your life and that of your children the most if you let them.