
First time in 175 years, Scientific American endorses a presidential candidate - rbanffy
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientific-american-endorses-joe-biden/
======
kangnkodos
I'm very disappointed that Scientific American endorsed a political candidate.

The reason is that this act adds to the polarization of this country. It does
nothing but add more hate to the world. It brings politics into an area of
life which has previously been apolitical.

Worst of all it normalizes the idea that one political party is smart and
rational, and another is stupid and illogical. Every time this idea is
repeated, and this article will lead to the idea being repeated more, another
swing voter who could go either way clings tighter to the Republican party.

Sure, it feels good to claim superiority in this manner, but it has the
opposite effect from what was intended.

~~~
rektide
> The reason is that this act adds to the polarization of this country.

Taking a position in favor of a candidate is not hate. Democracy is powered by
civic engagement. People who professionally write bear a joint responsibility
to be civic, to make cases, explain them.

~~~
kangnkodos
You make a good point. But take an objective look at all the other responses
on this page. How many of them contain the hidden assumption that Republican
voters are stupid? I see a few. You might not be able to see it right away.
You have to read them a certain way. Some have been downvoted and are light
gray. But they are there.

And conversation here on HN is very restrained. When this news hits other
social media, there will be more claims that Trump is stupid, Republicans are
stupid, and any independent who is considering voting for a Republican is
stupid.

So, yes, this article has unleashed a new wave of hatred in the world.

I have nothing against professional scientific writers writing a letter to the
New York Times, or even writing an editorial there. In fact they should. I
agree with you that it's good when they correct a specific claim with
scientific evidence.

This is something else.

This is the whole Scientific American organization putting their stamp of
approval on the idea that Republican voters are stupid.

~~~
sammalloy
Republican voters aren't stupid, they are grossly misinformed. This fact is
supported by multiple studies of the subject, and is hardly controversial.

> The group who names MSNBC as their main news source is far more likely than
> the Fox News group to answer correctly that the coronavirus originated in
> nature rather than a laboratory and that it will take a year or more for a
> vaccine to become available. On both questions, the portion in the CNN group
> to answer correctly falls between the MSNBC and Fox News numbers.

> About three-quarters (76 percent) of those who name Fox News as their main
> source are conservative Republicans and Republican leaners, while 57 percent
> who name MSNBC are liberal Democrats and Democratic leaners.

[https://www.journalism.org/2020/04/01/cable-tv-and-
covid-19-...](https://www.journalism.org/2020/04/01/cable-tv-and-covid-19-how-
americans-perceive-the-outbreak-and-view-media-coverage-differ-by-main-news-
source/)

~~~
leereeves
> to answer correctly that the coronavirus originated in nature rather than a
> laboratory

That hasn't been proven either way, and probably never will be.

And journalism.org's linked source is not scientific evidence, but rather a
"Statement in support of the scientists, public health professionals, and
medical professionals of China combatting COVID-19". I guess they mean "answer
politically correctly".

------
Bhilai
While I would have preferred that science publications not have explicit
political bias, I am not surprised and in some sense even supportive of this
move considering the current administration's explicit denial of science and
disdain for scientists.

~~~
threatofrain
Pro-science is a political bias as soon as you want to do something in the
world. The only unbiased attitude is the one which is content to do nothing
for humans and society, like a rock in the desert.

~~~
tim333
Dunno - rocks in the desert are pretty laissez faire.

------
_Microft
May fate be more gentle to your submission than it was to mine. [0]

It was flagged in no time despite being a thing that actually seems worthy of
discussion even if one does not agree with either the decision to endorse
someone at all or the choice of candidate.

Let's see if I can get the comment I wanted to write posted in here at least.

[0]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24482213](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24482213)

~~~
rbanffy
Sorry about your submission. I too felt it could, and should, be discussed in
objective terms. I was uncertain about posting it, however, because I feared
it could trigger the worst behaviors in our community.

------
awat
At what point does being non-partisan become less professional/respectable
than being partisan?

~~~
EForEndeavour
"If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of
the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say
that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality."

-Desmond Tutu

------
sandworm101
How many voters could this possibly sway? Regular readers of Scientific
American, a generally pro-science camp, made their choice long ago. The anti-
science camp won't be listening.

~~~
duxup
I'd like to know what really sways voters as it is?

I suspect that question is as murky as it gets on almost every topic.

~~~
rbanffy
In a sea of militarized disinformation, this editorial is an island of sanity.

------
saeranv
There seems to be a lot of comments here that think Scientific American (and
the media in general) should strive to be nonpartisan and treat both parties
equally. For those that think that way, I would like to know how you think we
should handle a scenario where one political party is legitimately acting in a
non-equal, extreme manner. Consider:

\- Candidate A lies 95% of the time.

\- Candidate B lies 5% of the time.

For the media to objectively/truthfully call out candidate A would be to act,
inherently in a partisan, unequal manner. There's no way to both accurately
report the difference between candidates A and B while also pursuing
moderation and consensus.

This is essentially the dilemma faced by the media, and is why we're in this
situation where despite the fact there is overwhelming evidence that the
majority of what Trump says is a lie[1] - the media treat it as the truth,
which is an enormous advantage to Trump (candidate A). A democratic system
that relies on informed voters selecting their political representation breaks
down when one candidate is allowed misinform voters, at will, by the media.

This is the same sort of situation with climate change, where the outlier
scientific view (climate change denial) is given equal weight and validity in
the media.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veracity_of_statements_by_Dona...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veracity_of_statements_by_Donald_Trump)

------
fsflover
Why is this flagged?

~~~
Jtsummers
It's politics. Political posts get flagged here unless they're particularly
relevant to the community (business, technology). This is an endorsement of a
candidate, admittedly with a view based in part on attitudes towards science,
but still an endorsement of a candidate. It's not on topic for HN. American
politics get flagged even faster because the discussion is usually fruitless.
Non-American politics sometimes survive and make the front page because it's
framed more as a discussion on economics or general human rights (still OT in
general, but the discussion is usually less divisive).

~~~
rbanffy
I fear climate denial and the anti-science attitude of the current
administration will have enduring negative effects in the American economy.

I am sure we _can and should_ discuss politics in objective terms. This is not
about political parties, but about a single person.

~~~
Jtsummers
In principle, I agree with you. In practice, the discussions end up devolving
too rapidly here. For what it's worth, I did upvote your submission and
intended to read and engage in the discussion. But mostly saw things I didn't
want to engage in or saw (essentially) my points made by others.

------
noxer
Utter garbage get that pol crap off of HN

~~~
rbanffy
This is another once-in-a-lifetime event. It seems they are happening more and
more often.

------
jpxw
Yet another Chesterton’s Fence torn down without regard

~~~
mcphage
I don't see any indication that they took this step lightly. Chesterton's
Fence teaches that, if you don't know why it's there, don't remove it. It
doesn't mean to never remove the fence. If you understand what purpose it
served, and the reason to remove it is more important than the reason it was
there, then removing it is the right thing to do.

------
username90
Do Scientific American really think that Biden is more important than Lincoln?
Or why else would they say that they refused to endorse Lincoln but now
endorse Biden? I can understand them endorsing Biden, but saying "First time
in 175 years" just makes it ridiculous. This election is not nearly as
important or divise as the 1860 election.

Edit: My point is that 175 years ago the paper was run by other people. So to
me it seems more likely that the people at this paper got more and more
political over time until now that they fully endorse one candidate. It is
fine to endorse one candidate, but talking as if this is a once in 175 year
election is not honest.

------
saeranv
Why is this being flagged?

~~~
tim333
[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)
Off-Topic: Most stories about politics...

------
fellellor
I’m not an American but I’m curious if it’s really ok for any voter to
publicly admit they’re voting for Trump these days, especially if they aren’t
politically active in general. From my own experience, media tends to blow
things out of proportion and spend inordinate amounts of time focusing on
trivial nonsense. So I wonder where the truth lies.

Aside this, isn’t it so funny that more hyper connected we’ve become with 24/7
news, feeds, and social media etc, the more clueless we’ve become.

~~~
akvadrako
There are a lot of people known as "shy Trump supporters" who won't publicly
admit it. A recent survey found that 70% of Republicans lie to pollsters:

[https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-
thinking/515198-pol...](https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-
thinking/515198-poll-66-percent-say-likely-a-significant-number-of-people-lie)

~~~
ardy42
> There are a lot of people known as "shy Trump supporters" who won't publicly
> admit it. A recent survey found that 70% of Republicans lie to pollsters:

That's not what that survey said:

> About two in three voters say they think it is likely that a significant
> number of people are not truthful when responding to political surveys, a
> new Hill-HarrisX poll finds.

It didn't ask if they lied, but if they _thought other people lied_. Maybe
that's a proxy for figuring out if the polled person lied themselves, but
that's not at all clear.

~~~
akvadrako
I agree it’s unclear but I would guess it’s probably a more accurate way to
see if they lie then asking them directly.

Even if the real number is 7% instead of 70% that could be enough to swing the
election.

------
jelliclesfarm
SciAm tweeted that the 2020 election is ‘literally a matter of life and
death’. I can never take Scientific American seriously again. Literally.

[..] Scientific American has never endorsed a presidential candidate in our
175-year history—until now.

The 2020 election is literally a matter of life and death. We urge you to vote
for health, science and Joe Biden for President.[..]

------
bargl
I see a ton of people making what I'd consider a pretty false assumption that
the probability of _any_ scientific american reader is pro trump is zero.

The link below is a pretty awesome, counter intuitive use case of Bayes Therom
that I saw which made me question statements like this. What the actual makeup
of Scientific American's reader base is is probably lower than 50% but it
isn't 0% either. That's a lot of wriggler room for me to be technically
assertion that yeah, they probably didn't lose half of their reader base. But
is it possible they lost 1/3, 1/5, 1/10? Those all affect the bottom line of a
company like this in much different ways. I'd assume that the leaders made an
educated decision, and weighed their pros/cons.

Also, just because you voted for Trump doesn't mean you'd unsubscribe to SA
just because they endorsed the other candidate. What I'd like to read is some
analysis that SA did on their readership base to determine how many people
they'd lose based on this decision and then the results of their experiment. I
mean what better way for a scientific journal to make a decision like this
than to also follow their hypothesis up with some analysis.

I have nothing meaningful to contribute to whether or not they
should/shouldn't have endorsed Biden, so I'll just say, it is not a zero
consequence decision.

[https://paulvanderlaken.com/2020/01/21/bayes-theorem-
probabi...](https://paulvanderlaken.com/2020/01/21/bayes-theorem-probability-
intuitive-3blue1brown/)

~~~
EForEndeavour
There's also the fact that making this unprecedented political endorsement
forces the SciAm name into the forefront of online discourse, quite possibly
prompting a wave of traffic and maybe even subscriptions from people who
viscerally agree with the SciAm article. Pragmatically speaking, this article
is insta-viral free advertising at the cost of Trump-supporting subscribers.

~~~
rbanffy
BTW, I'm happy this was brought up. I'm subscribing.

~~~
rbanffy
And just because you downvoted me, I'm algo gifting my older son with a
subscription.

------
TruffleLabs
Title of real post says “Scientific American Endorses Joe Biden”

------
AlgorithmicTime
What a huge mistake.

~~~
mcphage
Why?

~~~
ardy42
> Why?

I personally don't believe this is a mistake, but the only problematic thing I
can think of is that this might encourage Trumpers and Trumpworld to view
science as a Democratic constituency, and thus withdraw their support for
things like government science funding (thus making it more partisan and
unreliable). However, that's probably already happened to a significant
degree. Staying neutral towards someone who's already hostile to you is not a
very tenable position.

See also Republicans and labor unions:
[https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/06/opinion/labor-unions-
repu...](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/06/opinion/labor-unions-
republicans.html)

> It is often forgotten that Eisenhower and many other Republicans used to
> support labor unions, if not always enthusiastically....

> It was Ronald Reagan, with his firing of 11,000 striking air traffic
> controllers, who sent the Republican Party’s relations with labor into a
> tailspin. Despite the party’s shift to the right under Reagan, there
> continued to be many pro-labor Republicans in Congress well into the 1990s,
> like Representatives Jack Quinn of New York and Bob Ney of Ohio. They often
> bucked party leaders, for instance, to support a higher minimum wage.

> The decisive break came in 1996 when Speaker Newt Gingrich was struggling to
> retain control of the House. With Gingrich openly hostile to unions, the
> A.F.L.-C.I.O. endorsed Democrats over many longtime G.O.P. allies.

> At the time, the A.F.L.-C.I.O.’s political director justified the move,
> saying, “Anybody who stands with Gingrich as often as they do is not
> standing with working people.” But the spurned Republicans said labor had
> turned its back on the G.O.P. That ended a 120-year stretch during which
> unions had always been able to maintain some level of bipartisan support.

------
ChadTheNomad
Are there even any Scientific American subscribers who would vote for Trump?
Looks like they're just trying to capitalize on his crazy by getting new
subscribers.

~~~
war1025
Trump has a 50% approval rating, so I would guess there is some level of
overlap between the two groups.

Probably a fairly small overlap, but it almost certainly exists.

~~~
hprotagonist
43%, i believe. [https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-
ratings/](https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/)

he's been <50% approval, >50% disapproval since January 21, 2017.

~~~
war1025
Just depends who is doing the poll.

[https://www.newsmax.com/politics/Trump-approvalrating-
poll-t...](https://www.newsmax.com/politics/Trump-approvalrating-poll-
twitter/2020/09/14/id/986799/)

~~~
hprotagonist
the values i gave are the weighted means of many pollsters.

~~~
war1025
Either way its pedantry to the broader point I was trying to make of "There
are certainly Trump supporters who subscribe to Scientific American"

~~~
hprotagonist
ah. that claim does seem entirely plausible, yes.

------
s9w
I mean it's good that they make official what everyone knew for a few years
now: sciam is now a political organization.

------
just-juan-post
I'll be voting blue in the the upcoming election as I have for years but for
president I'll be voting red and because of science.

I don't trust the blue's candidate to wield the power of science properly and
it will directly affect me. The blue candidate has said the he supports a
nationwide lockdown "if the science supports it" as well as a nationwide mask
mandate. I'm sure he has some science to back this up as well.

The red candidate wields science like a weapon but there's a difference: The
actions of the red candidate do not affect me directly. The red candidate can
say whatever he wants but day to day it doesn't change my life

On other hand the blue candidate has said he'll make me wear a mask and that
he might make me stay in my apartment for weeks or months or years. That's not
happening.

The red candidate's poor use of science doesn't affect me directly and I'm
free to live my life (mostly) as I always have. The blue candidate's poor use
of science may lock me in my apartment for weeks, months, or years.

With a stance like that the blue candidate has no chance at my vote.

~~~
dismantlethesun
I once thought the same thing. I am from the red party, so I vote red most of
the time.

However, the current red candidate is dangerous. I'll explain why. Someone who
makes arbitrary decisions, can make any decision.

Even if they agree with your principals, and on the surface Mr. Red argues for
Red policies (e.g. reducing illegal immigration), their actual implementation
of it is atrocious (e.g. massive concentrations camps at the border, huge
budget overruns, and tacit violations of civil liberties) and the results are
poor in practice (e.g. fewer deportations than Mr. Blue who came before him).

A person who doesn't have consistent core beliefs, will always release an
incoherent plan.

The Blue's may not see eye-to-eye with me, but at least their practices are
understandable and can simply be rolled back in the next term.

Disclaimer: I may be biased, because shortly after taking office Mr. Red was
photographed smiling next to a dictator who recently murdered a student in my
alma mater university.

