How Scientific Empires End

Science is beneficial for progress, it makes sense at a 20,000 ft level for the government to encourage it, but politicians deciding which grants to offer, guidelines for what can be published by grant recipients, being able to make serious threats against universities and other such research institutions with few restrictions - there is no argument for a government to have such power. Either publicly funded research institutions should have strong protections in place for their academic integrity, or some alternative to government funding for these institutions should be the norm.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvg3xrrzdr0o

But articles consisting of only Hitler and Stalin comparisons persuade just about no one and is not the type of discourse I expect from HN.

I also agree with you. A more recent look is much more relevant and insightful than the linked article.

> American cars, and now even SIG handguns

SIG is a German/Swiss company, not American. American cars vary in quality wildly by manufacturer, with Stellantis being the worst offender of what you describe but Chevrolet being the least bad (at the moment).

With nothing like that looming right now, there is no check and balance on the anti-science regiment, and so sliding downhill we go. Sadly I don't see this changing either, unless theoretical physicists turn up the basis for some new weapon.

Maybe it’s OK. I don’t have to think about predators, which bugs are edible, and I have an entertainment rectangle in my pocket that I can use to tease people on the internet.

You act like this is something specific to one party when in fact it is representative of both parties, aka the Uniparty.

All agents of capital have blood on their hands from the pandemic they fumbled and that has not yet ended:

How the press manufactured consent for never-ending COVID reinfections

https://www.thegauntlet.news/p/how-the-press-manufactured-co...

Also, this is nothing specific to the US, though considering how many countries followed the lead of the CDC etc, one could reasonably argue the US is most to blame. But don't let that distract you from the fact that ultimately, global capital runs the show:

Modern Capitalism Is Weirder Than You Think It also no longer works as advertised.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/03/how-asset-managers-h... (https://archive.ph/Ysw6k)

It's normal for someone who's taken a position fully in favor of "science" to show their bias against what they see as the most eminent threats. There's no attempt here to hide the bias, in fact there's a fairly respectable attempt to explain the reason for the bias which you don't always get.

Any anti-science crusaders from their point of view are not as sensible when they don't explain their bias either. Nobody expects it to be zero bias so when an opinionated person owns up to it this is just a little something that could lead back to better understanding.

You want to be able to compromise on the roots of disagreement, rather than mindless name-calling if you want to recover one of the most sorely-missed elements of greatness.

Naturally what brought this to mind is that the whole time almost nobody is paying any attention to the little detail where sliced bread has never been the best bread anyway :\

If it's informing and convincing people who don't agree - I'm thinking that 99.9% of those folks aren't going to read any longish article in The Atlantic. And the 0.1% who might read will quickly be repelled if not angered by the article's tone. Similar for folks who do agree, then try to convince others with arguments and tones from the article.

If a preacher has no interest in actually spreading the Good News - preaching to the choir can be quite comfortable. And he's free to take nasty digs at unbelievers while doing that.