Posted on 09/16/2020 6:22:58 AM PDT by artichokegrower
Scientific American has never endorsed a presidential candidate in its 175-year history. This year we are compelled to do so. We do not do this lightly.
The evidence and the science show that Donald Trump has badly damaged the U.S. and its people—because he rejects evidence and science. The most devastating example is his dishonest and inept response to the COVID-19 pandemic, which cost more than 190,000 Americans their lives by the middle of September.
(Excerpt) Read more at scientificamerican.com ...
Yet another example of far-left ideology infecting the “hard sciences” in academia.
“Follow the science” when uttered by the left, means that this is the orthodoxy, and no questioning of the orthodoxy will ever be allowed.
Mark
I grew up loving Scientific American (60’s & 70’s).
I recently subscribed again and was appalled by the religious fervor on global warming.
All articles simply made the assumption that global warming is caused by mankind and that we must fight it.
I cancelled immediately. Not a hint of the scientific method in any of their articles. They don’t know the definition of science.
What a shame.
Trump gets the big things right, like peace in the Middle East instead of an Arab Spring that resulted in more slave markets in Libya and misery all around. The Democrats stand for chaos, Trump stands for negotiation, due process, and peace.
I can make my own face masks. I can’t stop an armed insurrection in cities across the country.
Why did you send me this wall of text?
Scientific American Says 5G Is Dangerous, Vegetables Are Junk Food
It’s official. Scientific American will publish absolutely anything.
This is not hyperbole or exaggeration. In August, SciAm published an article claiming that our food supply was “poison,” vegetables are “becoming more like sugary snacks,” and chronic diseases such as obesity and cancer are due to GMOs and glyphosate. It was the sort of insanity that you might expect to read on a site with little to no editorial control (like the Huffington Post) or on a conspiracy website (like InfoWars).
My statement was ambiguous, which I apologize for not catching. What I should have written was: “But, this is obviously a lie, as there exists no possible response that anyone could have taken, not even a Democrat, which would have attained zero deaths.”
LOL Not to mention Joe's thoughts on the "Big Bang".
Several decades ago, scientific american was a good read about science. Since they became a politicized journal perverting science, they aren’t worth the paper they are printed on. It is a waste of even a stunted, diseased tree to make the paper that this leftist anti-science rag is printed on. These anti-scientist writers are mainly concerned about keeping the federal grant money flowing to themselves and their friends. I hope this dishonest slimy rag goes bottoms up.
Thanks! It was a vital perspective and I glad you pointed it out.
Is this the same magazine and collection of smarty-pants that believes in Consensus Science over and before Scientific Method?
“Ad hominem attacks are an illegitimate form of argumentation because they are without substance and they fail to address issues.”
But they can be effective, so people keep on resorting to them. My reaction to them, when I see them on FR and elsewhere, is that the person resorting to them realizes that they just lost the argument.
SA has been neither “Scientific” nor “American” for decades and has done little except promote leftist fake science propaganda and leftist pseudo-science propaganda ...
Maybe they should add a trans porn section ... but “scientifically” of course ...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.