This is the edition of Atlantic Ocean Every day, the newspaper guides you to the biggest stories of the day, helps you find new ideas, and promotes the best in culture. Register it here.
Scientific American has been a major center for science and technology journalism in the United States. (It’s been in business 179 years, and longer Atlantic Ocean. ) As an old man in my youth—I started college as a chemistry major—I read it regularly. In 2017, I added a short article to it about public perception of science, taken from my book. The Death of Knowledge. But the magazine’s decision to break tradition and endorse Kamala Harris — the second such stunt in the magazine’s history — is a mistake, as is its 2020 endorsement of Joe Biden on many counts.
I understand the frustration that may have led to this decision. Donald Trump is the most willfully ignorant person ever to hold the presidency. He doesn’t even understand the basic concepts of…well, almost anything. (Yesterday, he explained to a woman in Michigan that he would lower food prices by reducing imports – in other words, by reducing the food supply. Trump went to Wharton School, where I think “supply and demand” was part of the first year curriculum.) He doesn’t like anything that goes against his needs or beliefs, and explaining to him on any topic is almost impossible.
When the scientific crisis – the plague – hit, Trump was worse than useless. He welcomed the government’s program to work with private industry to develop vaccines, but he also hit nuts about unproven drug treatments and later undermined public confidence in the vaccines he helped implement. His stubborn stupidity ruined the lives of Americans.
Therefore, it is reasonable that a scientific magazine feels the need to inform its readers of the dangers of such a person returning to public service. To be honest, almost any magazine makes sense about what ever perhaps he wants to support his opponent, given Trump’s negative effects on almost every aspect of American life. (Cat Fancy magazine——now called Catster— should be eager to write a jeremiad about Trump and his partner, JD Vance. But I’m angry.)
Although it seems strange, a magazine dedicated to science should not take sides in political competition. Another thing is that it doesn’t have to inspire anyone: Readers of a magazine like Scientific American they are probably people who have a good understanding of different concepts, including causation, the scientific method, peer review, and probability. It is insulting to these readers to explain to them that Trump does not know what those words mean. They probably already know this.
Now, I know the science and engineering community has a lot of Trump voters in it. (I know some of them.) But one of the most distinctive characteristics of Trump supporters is that they are not swayed by the appeals of the intellectuals. They are voting for their own reasons, and they do not represent the editors Scientific American to brainiac-explain why Trump is bad for knowledge.
Well, at least we have some evidence that non-political scientists can help us. In 2021, a researcher asked a group that included supporters of Biden and Trump to look at two versions of a popular newspaper. Nature— one with an informative page only about the magazine, the other with Biden’s endorsement. Here is the unsurprising result:
The consent message caused a significant reduction in the trust expressed in the Nature among Trump supporters. This lack of confidence has reduced demand for COVID-related information provided by Natureas evidenced by the greatly reduced claims of Nature Articles about vaccine effectiveness are not available. The approval also undermined Trump supporters’ trust in scientists in general. Effects on Biden supporters’ trust in Nature and the scientists were pretty, young and mostly mathematically useless.
In other words, the readers who supported Biden underestimated; Trump supporters have taken that decision Nature it was biased and therefore an unreliable source of scientific information.
However Scientific American‘s editors felt that the threat to science and knowledge was so bad that they had to support a candidate, they did it in the worst possible way. They could have made a case for appointing Harris as a defense intelligence issue, because Trump, who resents any kind of intelligence that doesn’t work for him, plans to destroy the relationship between intelligence and government by ending independence. . government agencies of science. This is an obvious danger, especially when Trump is partnering with kooks like Laura Loomer and floating around bringing in Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s “crackpot” circus. in government.
Instead, the magazine gave a typical left-wing endorsement that focused on health care, reproductive rights, gun safety, climate policy, technology and economic policy. . Although science and facts play their part in debates about such issues, most of the policy choices they raise are not particularly scientific questions: After all, almost all political questions are about values. -and how voters think about risks and rewards. Science cannot answer those questions; it can only tell us about the possible consequences of our choices.
What didn’t help was that some of the agreements appeared to be taken from Harris’ campaign briefing notes, such as this piece:
Economically, the renewable energy projects he supports will create new jobs in rural America. His platform also increases the tax credits for new small businesses from $5,000 to $50,000, making it easier for them to turn a profit. Trump, a felon convicted of sexual assault in a civil case, offers to return to his dark thoughts and thievery…
Consent based on Harris’s tax proposals—which is, again, viz policy options-are for a newspaper or financial journal. It’s not about sciencejust like his views on abortion or guns or anything else are not.
I realize that my objections seem like I am asking scientists to be neutral who have no opinion on important issues. Most self-respecting people want to express their opposition to Trump in the public square, regardless of their profession, and scientists do not need to be some monastic order. But policy choices are matters of judgment and are political and democratic choices. If a printing point like Scientific American is to increase respect for science and knowledge as part of creating a better society, then the endorsement of Harris’ highly politicized magazine does not serve that purpose.
Related:
Here are four new stories from them Atlantic Ocean:
Current Affairs
- Dozens of handheld radios used by Hezbollah have exploded across Lebanon, in a second wave of attacks on communications equipment that killed at least 20 people and injured more than 450 today, according to the health ministry. the beauty of Lebanon.
- The International Brotherhood of Teamsters has refused to nominate a presidential candidate for the first time in nearly three decades. Recent polls have shown that the majority of members of the group supported Trump’s endorsement.
- The Federal Reserve cut interest rates by half a percentage point, the first rate cut since early 2020.
Announcements
View all our newsletters here.
Evening Read
Death of the Minivan
Written by Ian Bogost
A minivan is often bought under pressure. If you live in a car town, and especially if you have a family, small talk is bound to happen. Your old, cool car—perhaps your Mini Cooper or your partner’s Honda CR-V—will prove unsuitable for current purposes. Costco supplies, bulk mulch, sports equipment and holiday supplies all need a place to go. The same goes for car seats, which are now recommended for 7-year-olds. So, prematurely: “Maybe we should get a stroller.”
Read the full article.
More From Atlantic Ocean
Cultural Tragedy
Visit again. Jennifer’s body (broadcast on Tubi and Hulu) has been recaptured as a cult — and its destructive antagonist also deserves a re-examination, writes Rafaela Bassili.
Listen. The first part of We Live Here Nowthe new podcast of Lauren Ober and Hanna Rosin, introduces their neighbor: the mother of the famous revolutionary of January 6.
Play our daily words.
PS
JD Vance yesterday made a disgusting comment to my colleague David Frum that the two apparent attempts on Trump’s life were made by people from “your group”. David spoke about Vance’s disgusting — and desperate — feelings here today.
Vance’s trolley aside, assassins are understandably on our minds as the election approaches. Tomorrow in our Time-Travel Thursday newsletter, I’ll offer a look at our archives, where contributors Atlantic Ocean tried to understand the assassinations of four presidents, in 1865, 1881, 1901, and 1964. Some of them are angry; others are aesthetic. Each, in his own way, is a writer who examines the attack not only on the president, but on the American soul.
You can subscribe to our newsletter, Time-Travel Thursday, for free, and read the weekly archives from the outset. Atlantic writers and editors. (And subscribe to Atlantic Ocean (for the ability to browse our entire digital archive, but be warned: Access to 167 years of fascinating literature will keep you busy.)
— Tom
Stephanie Bai contributed to this newsletter.
When you buy a book using a content commission link, we get a commission. Thank you for the support Atlantic Ocean.
#Scientific #American #Didnt #Support