6 ms·

Every piece called out here is clearly labeled "opinion" - did they even read the normal news and analysis sections? Countless newspapers and outlets and actual

• defrost 2y ago
  The linked article itself is an opinion piece. Reason does interesting stuff, sure, but no mistake it has a bias and that is a right centre libertarian view that loads factual content toward a predetermined conconclusion that individual free thinkers trump all. As such they take part in a current conservative habit of demonising "Science" to undermine results that bear on, say, environmental health, climate change, on so on that might result in slowing down a libertarian vision of industry. I still read their copy, I'm a broad ingestor of content, but no one should be blind to their lean either.
  • leereeves 2y ago
    I agree people should be aware of the bias of their sources (all of them), but there's no reason for anyone to be mistaken about Reason. (Please forgive the wording, I couldn't think of better.) Unlike many other sources, Reason doesn't pretend to be neutral. They admit: "Reason is the nation's leading libertarian magazine." https://reason.com/about/ https://reason.com/about/
    • mitthrowaway2 2y ago
      Does libertarianism take a position on transgender issues? (This seems to be one focus area of the article.) I can see the author has a strong view but I don't know how libertarianism informs it.
      • watwut 2y ago
        Libertarianism theoretically could go either way. Theoretically, do what you want with your bodies. However, libertarianias as they exist tend to be socially conservative - somehow they end up agreeing with GOP position on social issues. In this case, convervatives hate trans people, so libertarians too.
        • fingerlocks 2y ago
          Libertarians, at least the ones that subscribe to Reason, are not socially conservative. Just read a few articles and this is very apparent. The 2024 Libertarian Party Presidential candidate was a pro-trans gay man.
          • gs17 2y ago
            > The 2024 Libertarian Party Presidential candidate was a pro-trans gay man. And is pro-choice (but anti-government funding for abortion). And Reason seems positive about him: https://reason.com/2024/11/06/chase-oliver-calls-libertarian-party-presidential-run-honor-of-my-lifetime/ https://reason.com/2024/11/06/chase-oliver-calls-libertarian...
        • CoastalCoder 2y ago
          > exist tend to be socially conservative - somehow they end up agreeing with GOP position on social issues. In this case, convervatives hate trans people, so libertarians too Maybe I'm in the minority, but I think you're conflating a few groups that I see as distinct: Republicans vs. conservatives, and (Holding various views about the best public policies regarding transgender issues) vs. (hating transgender persons)
  • karaterobot 2y ago
    Are you saying the linked is meant to demonize science? The impression I got was that he was doing the exact opposite: saying that SciAm's editorial direction was harming the public perception of science, which could have far-reaching effects. I don't see that as an anti-science stance.
    • gopher_space 2y ago
      The author's little trans tirade is a great example, and you can start with his "I'm something of a medical expert" line. Pure ideology.
      • mitthrowaway2 2y ago
        I can't find where the author writes "I'm something of a medical expert". But for myself, I'm not up to date on the research. Does this article misrepresent the current state of scientific understanding?
        • gopher_space 2y ago
          > Most importantly, [the article] falsely claimed that there is solid evidence youth gender medicine ameliorates adolescent suicidality, when we absolutely do not know that to any degree of certainty. There's solid evidence youth gender medicine ameliorates suicidality. Cherry picking from a single study is dishonest.
          • TheOtherHobbes 2y ago
            And unscientific. To be clear - the accusation isn't SciAm was politicised, but that it was politicised in an ideologically unacceptable way. I doubt we'd hear a squeak of complaint if a new editor started promoting crackpot opinion pieces about how all research should be funded by markets instead of governments (because governments shouldn't exist), or that libertarianism is the highest form of rationality. I'll take its deeply-felt concern for science and reason seriously when it starts calling out RFK Jr for being unscientific. (Prediction: this will never happen.)
• scarab92 2y ago
  The examples given in the article are quite egregious, and the authors of those pieces are not notable. SciAm nonetheless made the decision that those particular opinions should be published under their banner, and it’s not clear on what basis that decision was made other than editorial discretion.
• rayiner 2y ago
  If an editor of a science magazine chose to publish op-eds about how 5G causes cancer and then went on a Twitter rant along those lines that impugns her credibility and judgment as a whole. Similarly here.
• taeric 2y ago
  I'm unsure that helps things? Maybe if some of the excerpts were jokes? The criticism of JEDI is particularly laughable. If sad. I say that as someone that finds the acronym cringe worthy. So, yeah, I agree that the standards are lower in these sections. I question if they are non existent.
  • jbstjohn 2y ago
    "I'm not questioning your standards; I'm denying their existence entirely."
• jgalt212 2y ago
  > Every piece called out here is clearly labeled "opinion" True if one stopped reading half-way through.
• carabiner 2y ago
  Opinion: Astrology should be seriously considered... That label doesn't give carte blanche to publish non-scientific nonsense. Does it?
  • psychoslave 2y ago
    Well, that sounds like a very interesting theme to study scientifically indeed: what makes astrology such a resilient and widespread cultural practice in contemporary citizens?
    • logicchains 2y ago
      Statistically there are absolutely robust correlations between month of birth and certain traits, but because of stuff like age-at-starting-school not voodoo about the stars. So it's not surprising people keep noticing such patterns, they're just incorrect at identifying the root causes.
• keiferski 2y ago
  The opinion pieces in pretty much every major newspaper are mixed in with the “factual” content, so for the average person reading, there is no difference. See for example “top links” sections, which include both.
• hnburnsy 2y ago
  Not true, this is not labeled anywhere I can see as opinion, but does include an editors note to a suicide helpline, and a correction... https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-are-puberty-blockers-and-how-do-they-work/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-are-puberty-...
  • abirch 2y ago
    What isn’t factual in this article? Is it political because it discusses puberty blockers and transgender adolescents?
    • leereeves 2y ago
      I think GP agrees it is factual. It is also called out in the OP ("contained countless errors and misinterpretations"). So it's a counterexample to the claim "Every piece called out here is clearly labeled 'opinion'"
    • jl6 2y ago
      One part that isn’t factual is the statement on safety of GnRHs which cites their use in treating precocious puberty, which is a completely different indication and treatment (age of treatment, length of treatment, purpose of treatment), and does not consider the impact on psychosexual development, nor consider the impact on desistance of non-trans kids. The “safe and reversible” narrative originates in medical consensus amongst doctors and activists, not evidence from scientific enquiry. The difference between consensus-based medicine and evidence-based medicine eludes most participants in this debate.
      • notahacker 2y ago
        The statement regarding precocious puberty is entirely factual, and the statement linking that claim to supplying the same hormones to trans kids is linked to an article containing more detail (including a discussion of possible downsides and links to actual papers). I'd agree wholeheartedly that the difference between consensus and evidence-based medicine eludes most participants in the debate, but frankly that seems to apply far more to the side of the debate whose higher quality analysis is of the form of "it appears the systematic studies the other side have done might exhibit researcher bias, so rather than do our own retrospective on the same research subjects we'll just move for speedy consensus to ban the practice altogether"
• 46307484 2y ago
  Why do opinions need a place to go? Why can't we just demonize professionals who lack the ability to report factual content without mixing in their opinions as unfit to be writing?
  • resource_waste 2y ago
    When I was in my 20s, I believed you. Now that I'm in my 30s, I think we need a nanny police state making sure everyone is rational.
    • bsenftner 2y ago
      You can't make people rational after their education, that's the whole insanity of all this: education is the key, critical thought, not creating gullible fools. But religion and many political ideologies depend upon gullible people or they would not exist, so the powerful members of those tribes impel society (for the children!) to denigrate education to produce morons. The United States is filled with them, they may have graduate degrees but they can't logically identify a con man.
      • Nevermark 2y ago
        Simple advertising too. It is a constant reinforcer of subconscious anti-rational thought. Even if you imagine you never buy anything due to exposure to advertising, advertising is still hammering away, with its manipulative motivated based impressions on our minds. If some source of information is worth consuming, at least for me it is worth paying to consume without advertisements if that is an option. The fact that YouTube video advertising isn’t scratching the chalkboard level unacceptable to many people is all the evidence I need to know they have been deeply impacted by ad programming.
      • doodaddy 2y ago
        I agree that there seems to be, on the whole, a downward trend of educated, critically thinking populace. The statistics and anecdotes align to make this clear. But I struggle to pick the cause. Certainly I don’t buy into the idea that there are rooms of politicians and school board members discussing how to keep the population uneducated. Behind every outcome is an incentive. So what do you think is the incentive that’s behind the decline?
• psychoslave 2y ago
  We also maybe have to deal with the common misconception that a fact proceeds somehow from an absolute objective perspective. But as far as humans are concerned, there are only human points of views grounded in human cognition and human interests. Some human points of views might try to encompass more than the direct individual own experience might otherwise limit to, sure, but that is still human endeavor. Fact and factitious have a common Latin root for a reason. Even the carefully engineered autonomous probe will only gather data according to some human conceptions of what matter to be recorded or dismissed, what should be considered signal rather than noise.
  • Nevermark 2y ago
    > there are only human points of views grounded in human cognition and human interests. “Only”? No. The entire point of having a scientific approach, an ever longer list of ways to weed out mistakes and misperceptions, is that raw human cognition can be improved upon. Repeatable results, independently reproduced results, peer review, control elements, effect isolation, … the list is actually very long. Not every one of the methods we have collected applies to every step in knowledge, but every step we take can be validated by as many of them as apply. And new ways of falsifying false conclusions continue to accumulate.
• Nevermark 2y ago
  Informed opinion, clearly labeled so, on interesting but non-controversial non-ideological topics can be great instigators of curiosity. What might have come before the Big Bang? Do quantum superpositions really collapse somehow based on some as yet uncharacterized law, or does our universe produce a web of alternate futures, still connected but where straightforward links are quickly statistically and irreversible obscured? There is a science friendly basis for interesting opinions of particular experts, in areas of disagreement or inconclusive answers, when clearly labeled as opinion, whose opinion, and why that experts opinion is of special interest. Also, opinion on the state of science education, funding or other science relevant non-scientific topics, with all due modesty of certainty makes good sense. But injecting ideological opinions, and poorly or selectively reasoned ones, or unestablished conjectures falsely posed as scientific truth, into a format that claims to be representative of science based information, is a tragedy level disservice. Not to mention, with respect to Scientific American in particular, a betrayal of many decades of higher standards, work and reputation.
  • rbanffy 2y ago
    > Not to mention, with respect to Scientific American in particular, a betrayal of many decades of higher standards, work and reputation. It's hard to deny science itself is under attack by the same people who try to establish alternative facts and truths based on what's politically convenient to them, even if nothing of that is backed by objective reality. Science will always be a force pushing against such agendas. How is the best way to serve the higher standards of SciAm? Would it be ignoring the elephant in the room, this new shiny fake reality where vaccines cause autism, the Earth is flat, that scientists have been hiding perpetual motion machines from the public? Or would it be to risk being labeled "biased" or "political" and actively label and fight against these anti-science movements? Science is politics. It is the strong belief that there is one single objective reality, that anyone with the proper tools can observe and verify, and that going against these cornerstones for political expediency is wrong and, ultimately, against the interests of our species.
    • rayiner 2y ago
      Science can touch on politics, but that doesn’t mean science is coextensive with politics. You selected examples where science bears on politics, but Helmuth’s fixation wasn’t on how many people believe vaccines cause autism. As demonstrated by her closing screed, it was about non-falsifiable moral assertions (“sexism,” “racism,” and the “moral arc of the universe”). Indeed, the point of the Reason article is that if scientists want to have credibility on questions where their expertise applies, they should avoid opining in their official capacity on political questions where their expertise doesn’t apply. Science has much to say about politically important issues like climate change and vaccines! But people will blow off those assertions if scientists lend the imprimatur of their authority to advance social causes, for example by opining that it’s “racist” to vote to deport illegal immigrants.
• gregwebs 2y ago
  Should a publication with science in its name publish opinions with obviously (to a scientifically skeptical mind) incorrect factual statements? When we see opinions leaning very consistently one way at a publication it invariably turns out their non opinion pieces have some of that bias. That bias always includes ignoring scientific accuracy in favor of political ideals.
• seydor 2y ago
  You re making it sound as if every opinion is valid to go in there. For the same reason why they wouldn't publish eugenicist opinions, they should shy away from obvious cringebait. Afaik science has not yet ran out of much more interesting opinions than the ones mentioned
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]