In the lead-up to the 2022 midterm elections, Northeastern University ran an analysis attempting to evaluate how much political endorsements actually matter in determining the outcome of a race. The consensus of their assembled experts and professors seemed to be that someone like former President Donald Trump's endorsement of a candidate during a midterm election might help at the periphery, but, "there are more fundamental variables affecting election outcomes than endorsements."
Okay, got it. Influential and charismatic figures like former President Trump have little impact with their endorsements. But the movers and shakers over at... Nature magazine apparently believe they can. Yes, the folks over at Nature have decided that it's vital for them to get involved in political endorsements. I get where they're coming from:
- People who read Nature magazine to learn about wildlife are undoubtedly really hoping to hear political hot takes from their favorite bird photographer.
- Involving or introducing politics with your work never ruins anything.
- The general population is desperately looking for less things that can distract them from political rancor and get their minds off all the hysterics for awhile.
What could possibly go wrong with such a brilliant business plan?
As one observer noted upon reading Nature's announcement:
It's a good point, considering all that the progressive movement has done to damage the name of science. Whether it's continuing to cling to a farcical molecules-to-man, inorganic-to-organic explanation for the origin of life, the Covid circus that saw lifetime members of the scientific community torch their credibility to play stooges for the machine, the gender nonsense that has convinced medical doctors to willfully violate their Hippocratic Oath and mutilate children for profit, I don't know why anyone should expect scientific fidelity from this group.
Science is like everything else to the Left – an area that must be made obedient to their religion.
You must listen to their prophets, no matter how wrong they are:
You must not only agree with their diagnosis, but with their remedies as well:
If Holden Thorp, a former Chancellor at the University of North Carolina who now holds the position of editor-in-chief of Science magazine, was a legitimate representative or spokesman for the discipline of science, these remarks would be inexplicable. Science cannot prove a value judgment. It can provide information that is then processed rationally and synthesized philosophically to make a value judgment. Suggesting that your understanding of a particular scientific field necessarily confers greater authority to your value judgments reveals your real identity. When you understand that Thorp is a religious fanatic, it all makes a lot more sense.
Only a fanatic (and dare I say a fascist) argues, "We can't allow people to disagree with the policy ideas I have" and thinks they're the good guy.
But just like in every other profession it infects, that's what progressivism does to scientists. Even those who take neat pictures for a magazine.
