We premise this post that we do not give ten Hancocks about who wins the US election this coming autumn, or should we say “fall”?
We don’t do politics in TTE; we do not follow political debates as we try to focus on the evidence or lack of it.
This morning’s crop of emails, however, brought us this:
Scientific American has published some dodgy stuff lately and has played a role (let’s hope not a major one) in muzzling the US population, airing the views of lobbyists and charlatan influencers, and presenting them as “science”.
We feel that science is now being used as an excuse to control populations in societies that allow themselves to be manipulated; just remember the lockdowns and the price that we will pay for them in generations to come. It seems some media share this view—Newsweek considers the Scientific Establishment Is Turning 'Science' Into a Dogmatic Tool of Oppression.
The point is that if scientific endeavour declares itself for this or that party it ceases to be independent and we go back to the middle ages. The fate of Giordano Bruno and Galileo Galilei are the examples we usually cite to ram this point home.
One final point was spotted by eagle eyed reader RonL.
In 179 years Scientific American has only endorsed two US candidates. The current one and the previous one being…….? Come on, guess…….Drum roll:
This post was written by two old geezers who on the top of the fingers counted 179-minus 4 (2024-2020) making 175. So, 175 years of silence and then a double whammy.
We also liked this tweet:
Further reading on the Scientific American’s Editor in Chief
The covid-19 lab leak hypothesis: did the media fall victim to a misinformation campaign?
BMJ Slaps Down Scientific American’s Laura Helmuth for Unscientific Trans Activism
Scientific American’s Laura Helmuth Continues Campaign to Embarrass and Humiliate Herself
Scientific American has been bought, paid for. Simple as. Like the rest of the mainstream media, it can no longer be trusted. Was it a serious scientific journal? I would suggest it is now somewhere on a par with Vogue or Good Housekeeping.....
I've seen some opinions pieces on substack arguing about whether political opinions should be voiced in practice or some candidate should be openly endorsed.
They are not there for that. You are not there for that. I think they are called patients not patience so lets not indulge the latter.....