Liberal Forum

ROG62 » Yesterday, 10:47 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 10:47 pm

Leading Science Mag Endorses Harris, Damaging Only Itself

 Scientific American debuted in 1845. It is the oldest continually published magazine in the United States. Alas, its current editorial staff has spent most of the past decade obliterating whatever remained of the sterling reputation the publication had built up for more than a century. On Sept. 16, Scientific American did a very un-scientific thing. It formally endorsed Kamala Harris for president. The endorsement is only the second in the magazine’s 179-year history, the editors stressed, as if to emphasize the extraordinary seriousness of its action. Guess who was the first? No, it wasn’t William McKinley.

Enemy of Democracy, Enemy of Science

 “Vote for Kamala Harris to Support Science, Health and the Environment,” the editorial’s headline read. If the idea was to put a scholarly veneer on the Harris campaign, it failed miserably. The editors wallowed in the same inflammatory language Americans can easily find – or ignore – across the big-box media spectrum.
 With appropriate vagueness, Harris was praised for “relying on science, solid evidence and the willingness to learn from experience.” Her support for “reproductive rights” was hailed, stretching the definition of science beyond rationality. And, of course, Harris was touted for treating “the climate crisis as the emergency it is.”
 Trump, meanwhile, “endangers public health and safety and rejects evidence, preferring instead nonsensical conspiracy fantasies,” the magazine asserted. “He fills positions in federal science and other agencies with unqualified ideologues. He goads people into hate and division, and he inspires extremists at state and local levels to pass laws that disrupt education and make it harder to earn a living.”
 It’s rather astonishing that the “experts” trotted out to parrot this familiar narrative in the name of their particular profession still don’t understand the consequences of their actions. When science becomes indistinguishable from the shrillest voices on CNN or MSNBC, who is being hurt here?

Cont...