Science EIC defends politicization of science and suppression of ‘unacceptable’ scientific opinions
Earlier this week, world-renowned scientific journal Nature broke a massive scoop. Apparently their endorsement of Joe Biden for president in 2020 didn’t go over as well with the public as they thought it would:
nature (@Nature) ~ In 2020, Nature endorsed Joe Biden in the US presidential election. A survey finds that viewing the endorsement did not change people’s views of the candidates, but caused some to lose confidence in Nature and in US scientists generally.
http://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-00799-3?utm_medium=Social&;utm_campaign=nature&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1679348459
We could’ve told them that would happen and we’re not even scientists! Crazy, right?
Anyway, in theory, at least, a scientific publication would be familiar with how cause and effect work and would understand that maybe getting involved in politics could have the effect of costing them a lot of people’s respect. But the geniuses at Nature apparently missed class the day cause and effect was taught:
And if Science editor in chief Holden Thorp’s take on Nature’s boneheadedness is any indication, we should be prepared for scientific publications to lean into politics even harder ...
Yeah, poor lil' Holden didn't react too well to the truth. You can read about his temper tantrum by clicking on the Twitchy link. Suffice it to say, Holden thinks that leftist "scientists," like him, should do all the thinking for everyone else. Good luck with that, Holden.
... Holden Thorp, an alleged Man of Science™, thinks that the public should not have access to scientific data if that data doesn’t support a left-wing agenda. He thinks the public shouldn’t be allowed to form opinions based on scientific data that doesn’t support a left-wing agenda.
If we go back through the history of science, we’ll come across quite a few individuals whose opinions on scientific matters were politically unpopular but were ultimately proven correct.
So how much does Thorp love science, really?
Damin Toell (@damintoell) ~ Oh no, we can't let the people have permission to say things you don't like, this is a travesty!
jimtreacher.substack.com (@jtLOL) ~ Oh, is it unacceptable? You refuse to accept it? How about that.
Area Man (@lheal) ~ Accepting climate change and not wanting government intervention ... or wanting a particular government intervention but not others ... is perfectly legitimate. Using the remaining goodwill toward science to further your own policy preferences is not.
Perry E. Metzger (@perrymetzger) ~ You are saying that a reasonable political opinion that differs from your own should not be allowed to be expressed. That is repugnant, but unlike you, I defend your right to say such things even if they are terrible ideas.
The essential American soul is hard, isolate, stoic, and a killer. It has never yet melted. ~ D.H. Lawrence
| 
