Scientific American Endorses Joe Biden

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientific-american-endorses-joe-biden/

I find this interesting. A president who is so anti-science, that a respected science journal has said, "enough!"

This probably won't sway anyone's opinion, but some of you may find this an interesting read.

 

It's a good thing they took a stance.

I just wish the reasoning would have focused on science only, instead of going into issues like Trump creating obstacles to voting. The way the endorsement is written, it will make it easier for Republicans to just dismiss it flat out.

 

It's been decades since that pub was relavant.. I can't remember exactly what it was just now.. perhaps an unscientific opinoin on climate.. anyway.. I've since dismissed anything they've said.. an them chirping in on a political matter is but one more reason to distrust anything they say.

 

Now it's official, Trump can concede now and save us the bother and expense of an election.

 

Cute Scientific American (or someone high up at Scientific American) has become a political prop. Are we supposed to care who they endorse, seriously? I mean, I was really planning to vote for Trump, but if some anti-Trumper at Scientific American thinks Biden is a better choice..... ROFL!

 

Cool...this is like the Discovery Channel endorcing someone...

 

I'm really waiting to see who BET endorses before I seal my vote....

 

To be honest....hip hop and shark week is a good combo

 

Its almost like the Corona Task Force never existed to the magazine they way they report it.

 

Most of you missed the part where I said: This probably won't sway anyone's opinion,

I never expect any Trump worshipers to respect science. It's very easy to understand why people who don't understand anything about science wouldn't like a journal that reports on science. LOL. So predictable.

It was posted for those who may find it interesting.

 

That you equate science with entertainment is telling.

 

Pretty stupid move. Trump supporters won't protest, they simply will silently boycott their products. These people should have stayed neutral...

 

All they've done is hurt their own credibility.

 

Its amazing to watch people dehumanize people who think differently then them while claiming to be for tolerance.. Scientific fact one week is challenged the next. You really need to understand what science is before you start launching group insults to make yourself feel better.

 

Only with people who hate science already.

When a president is SOOOOOOOOO anti-science that it makes an apolitical organization go, "wait a minute - we don't need A scientist, but we need someone who at least knows what science is!!!"

 

It is a stupid thing to do. They upset half the people without gaining a thing for their business. Bad business.

 

So many things wrong with this statement.

The entire POINT of science is to disprove previously accepted science. It's the number one job of a scientist - disprove other scientists.

It was obvious from team Trump that they don't know this, since in July, they are still spouting stuff about COVID from February.

It's BRAND NEW SCIENCE - of course the understandings are going to change often and quickly. The fact that you are spouting months old science was all we needed to know.

 

You call that "denying" now......

Asbestos was in heavy use in the US up to 1980 or so and has been used for 4500 years. Up to that point if you claimed it was toxic or bad for health you would have been called a "denier" or some other nonsense if we viewed things back then like Progressives do now.

The task force you dismiss does indeed have scientists leading it. So.. um yah.

 

I don't think they upset anybody. I very highly doubt any Trump worshiper reads SA. We subscribe to it; very informative journal.

For those who think scientists should have known absolutely everything about the world that there is to know, during Adam and Eve times, the publication is so over-their-heads, it doesn't matter.

Why didn't they tell us all we needed to know about COVID in 1450? Huh? Tell me that?

Lulz.

 

Insults and strawmen do you feel better now?

 

Would that not be the viewpoint of every supporter of tRUMP?

It has science in the name of the publication.

 

There are thousands of posts on this forum from people confused as to why scientists said one thing about COVID in February, new information in March, and even newer information in April. Rinse/repeat, same confusion, month after month.

If that isn't a clear and obvious demonstration of a failure to understand the scientific method; I don't know what else will convince you. It really just means you need to learn more about the process.

 

And what exactly is science to you?

 

Which half did they upset? If you're talking hard core tRUMP voters, that'd be about 35%.
The are in the science arena.

Funded by / Ownership

Scientific American is owned by Springer Nature, an academic publishing company created by the May 2015 merger of Springer Science+Business Media and Holtzbrinck Publishing Group‘s Nature Publishing Group, Palgrave Macmillan, and Macmillan Education. The company reported revenues of €1.64 billion in 2017. The magazine is funded through subscriptions and advertising. The website is funded through online advertisements and sponsored content.

Analysis / Bias

In review, Scientific American is a popular science magazine and website that covers general science, technology, health, psychology, the environment, and history. There is rarely the use of loaded language and all information is properly sourced. Scientific American covers science through the consensus on GMO’s and climate change. Editorially, Scientific American is not in favor of President Trump’s climate and deregulation stances as evidenced by this: Scientific American slams Donald Trump’s anti-science rhetoric in a rare op-ed. In general, this is a pro-science source that has remained mostly neutral in politics throughout its history, however, in 2020 they state “The evidence and the science show that Donald Trump has badly damaged the U.S. and its people—because he rejects evidence and science.” Therefore, this is a pro-science source that offers left-leaning opinions.

Failed Fact Checks
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/scientific-american/

 

Umm no.. Pointing out how the science/knowledge of this virus has changed through out the months is not confusion.. Trump has changed as the science has changed on the topic even Fauci has said this ( you do remember him right?)

You make a false claim and then insult my intelligence again amusing....!

Perhaps instead of slinging **** you should keep up with the actual topic.....