Publishing "objectively rigorous science" is great. That's why we have several hundred science journals publishing (theoretically) peer-reviewed articles.
Scientific American should do this. It should also talk about how and why and by who the science is done, because that is how you IMPROVE THINGS.
Every single time someone complains that something is "political" what they actually mean is that it is questioning the status quo.
Guess what, the status quo is also the result of politics. Whatever the exact system and framework we have at this moment is not some kind of "natural universal default" that just happened to come into existence.
People created it. Thousands of people made millions of choices to get us to where we are, and guess what, that is politics.
Pretending none of that happened or that nothing should change is just ... cowardly.
Scientific American should do this. It should also talk about how and why and by who the science is done, because that is how you IMPROVE THINGS.
Every single time someone complains that something is "political" what they actually mean is that it is questioning the status quo.
Guess what, the status quo is also the result of politics. Whatever the exact system and framework we have at this moment is not some kind of "natural universal default" that just happened to come into existence.
People created it. Thousands of people made millions of choices to get us to where we are, and guess what, that is politics.
Pretending none of that happened or that nothing should change is just ... cowardly.