Posted on 09/15/2020 12:44:50 PM PDT by Menehune56
Scientific American on Tuesday endorsed Joe Biden, the first presidential endorsement in the magazine’s 175-year history. Its editors said they felt “compelled” to do so because President Trump’s well-documented rejection of science, from climate change to the coronavirus, has cost tens of thousands of American lives.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Guess there is much more money in printing what people WANT TO HEAR as opposed to what people SHOULD HEAR. Modifying reality is what radical leftists do...the alternate universe seems to be much more appealing to them.
I can recall being introduced to big-bore rock tunneling, to create tunnels for people-carrying cars to rocket underground.
I can recall articles on polyominoes and what cool stuff they were.
I can recall all sorts of neat *scientific* articles.
Then, for a short while, they seemed to require one leftist article per month. I held my nose for a few months to read the still good stuff, but when the pattern was obvious (in the original Scientific American experimentation way), I left.
Maybe a year or two after that I checked SA, and found the 1-per-month to then be the entire Ragazine. This was about 25 or more years ago.
SA hasn’t had anything to do with Science for decades.
I cancelled my subscription 30 years ago. I saw the politics creeping in back then. Can’t imagine what it is like now
Thus proving that they are neither “Scientific” nor “American”.
I was interested in unbiased science, not leftism disguised as science, so SA had to go.
True. They're still good about cosmology, materials, and straight biology. But if there's any eco- aspect to a topic, they push it hard left for all they're worth.
When will C&EN, Physics Today, and American Scientist OD on TDS Koolaid?
I’m sure the Germans do want BiteMe.
The rag’s owner has a German parent company.
Well then. I used to subscribe. With this endorsement, the publication is dead to me.
A separate group, the radical environmentalists that coalesced in the 1960's decried economic growth because, in their view, it negatively impacted the environment.
After it was clearly shown that socialism would lead to an inferior standard of living, the two groups allied themselves. The Marxists got a justification for lower economic expectations, and the environmentalists got the required authoritarian government that was necessary to implement their policies.
No matter how you slice it, freedom loses.
I am a Ph.D. molecular and cellular biologist, and subscribe both to “Nature” and “Science”, which are premiere journals that every scientist hopes to publish in.
However, this year, both journals also support “Black Lives Matter”, and publish all sorts of malarkey about “diversity”, “inclusion”, and “racial justice”.
Don’t they know that BLM is NOT about “racial justice” but about VIOLENT communist revolution?
The editor of “Science” in an editorial replied to readers who wanted the journal to stick to science, and gave some bogus reasons why they wouldn’t do so. I for one wish that they WOULD stick to science!!!!
The other premiere bioscience journal, “Cell”(which I also subscribe to), at least so far has stayed clear of politics.
“Scientific American” is owned by Macmillan, which used to publish “Nature”, and still has an interest in it. Macmillan is totally globalist, which explains its leaning toward the Democrat party. As with the more scholarly scientific journals, “Scientific American” has NO BUSINESS publishing political opinion or endorsing candidates!!
Scientists should be smart enough to realize that Joe Biden is too demented to understand science, or to make sound scientific decisions. They should also realize that Kamala Harris is too much of a leftist ideologue to care about science, except to use scientists as dupes!! PHOOEY to both of them!!!!
I canceled my subscription back in 1973, they were already going full PROG/LIB/COMMUNIST/DEMOCRAT/STUPID way back then!
Yup, Science is political.
A scientific magazine puts their endorsement on a candidate with demonstrated, age-related mental acuity degradation.
Got it.
I used to LOVE Scientific American when I was a kid. I sometimes performed their monthly experiment, building the necessary apparatus to the hair-tearing of my mother for making a mess. It was a great publication. But now? Their editors have gone libtard PC and it's just another organ for indoctrination. Such a shame!
“Yup, science is political”
The Scientific American ( which is neither) just endorsed the guy who said he believes in “Truth over Facts.”
“I cancelled my subscription 30 years ago. “
So did I.
It USED to be interesting.
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.