Scientific American Endorses Joe Biden

Observable and able to be repeated.

 

Sorry, in my view it is STUPID for any company to get involved in politics, any politics. Scientific American is a company.

 

Comments like, "These guys can't keep their stories straight. It's one story in February, another in June, another in July..."

The entire pandemic forum is littered with such comments. They clearly indicate a lack of understanding about how science works. Don't pretend otherwise. People who understand the process do not make such silly claims.

 

It is stupid. Sorry.

 

Can you quote them in context? Can you also answer why Progressives on this site quote Trump in Feb and act as if the belief is still the same now? hmm?

Again Trump has listened to Fauci on all his advice.... He has never countered it. Fauci himself has stated this.. Instead of discussing that you call people "worshipers" or like posts claiming people cant read.. You might think its funny but it does not serve your cause it just makes posts like childish and petty.

 

To me, after 175 years of staying quiet, it indicates that scientists are concerned about the anti-science rhetoric being spewed at the American people.

 

You know exactly what I mean. It's a blatant refusal to understand that with something as novel is this virus, new information was literally being discovered every hour.

"Why didn't they tell us this piece of information in February? Were they hiding?"

 

So you cant quote them in context? One person who is very eager to say the right "hates" science told me going to get a hair cut is literally trying to kill him.. Do you think that is a stupid thing to say? ( Strangely enough after asking four seperate times if Pelosi was trying to kill him i never got an answer). Do you think i should project that one post and claim its all Progressives that think that?

 

That you consider this political stunt anything other than entertainment is telling.

The fact that you couldn't follow the sequence of messages for context though, that's not surprising at all.

 

is the publisher of this magizine a scientist?

 

Those would be facts or sometimes called proofs.

But the main object of science is to develop a hypothesis and then do experiments to prove or disprove said hypothesis. Maybe even for a brand new hypothesis.
Science is ever searching, ever changing. Fine tuning.


https://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/science-fair/steps-of-the-scientific-method

 

As the normal standard, I agree, it's not wise for a business to take a religious or political stand.

But, we aren't living in normal times. This is a very divisive time we live in. Social media makes events happen instantly.

 

All the more reason for businesses to stay out of politics.

 

......by a tiny minority of people and has nothing to do with politics. Bad business, sorry.

 

I find science quite entertaining
"We, scientists, predict global warming"
five years later,
"We, scientists, predict global cooling"
another five,
one more time
"We scientists predict global warming"
oh ****,
"Let's just call it Climate Change", someone will buy into that meme.

 

I get that they can discover more, but imagine any of us making a major announcement and then going "Whoops we were wrong about that.". The added hysteria didn't do anyone any good, and so they can't patronize anymore than Trump can.

 

I agree. This foolishly partisan political stunt will now taint their credibility in terms of objectivity and impartiality, both of which should be prerequisite to legitimate scientific study.

In some ways it is akin to how the left politicized COVID.

When things like science (and COVID) become partisan and politicized, anyone with any intelligence and inclination towards critical thinking is going to be suspicious.

Neutrality would have been a better stance for a scientific publication hoping to maintain any credibility and appearance of objectivity.

 

No. I'm not going treasure hunting to prove what I mean when you know EXACTLY what I'm talking about.

Comments like this - first it wasn't a threat, then it was maintain 3 feet distance from each other, now it's 6 feet apart. These guys have no clue, so why should I listen to them."

Rinse/repeat with every new finding.

 

Who said that.

 

"anti science"!? this term reminds me of something.. and I automatically figure the use of such a term total BS.

 

Anti science: People who prefer their gut instinct over actual science.

 

Yeah right, did you forget how Trump would call for boycots of any company that did not sing praise of him.

 

Indeed they have.

It won't be obvious until later, but in the name of SCIENCE, Scientific American has endorsed an old man with dementia. Not a great look for the SCIENCE community.

 

pfft looks who's the editor... a former Washington Post editor...splains everything

On April 13, 2020, Laura Helmuth assumed the role of Editor-in-chief.
She was formerly the Health and Science editor at The Washington Post.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_American

 

Who are the 'we scientists'?
And where did those scientists call for global cooling?