CLAY TRAVIS (HOST): Finally, Scientific American magazine has endorsed Kamala Harris. It’s the second endorsement that this magazine has felt compelled to make in its 179-year history. The last endorsement they had was for Joe Biden. Now they are endorsing Kamala Harris. Why? What has Kamala Harris done that you look at Donald Trump if you were truly being honest and not just a victim of Trump derangement syndrome? What has Trump done? And what has Kamala done such that you have to have a magazine that has nothing to do with politics decide to endorse a political candidate for a second time, both times anti-Trump, no matter who the candidate was, I think they would have made that choice.
…
I am of the opinion that science should be much like the First Amendment, filled with a variety of perspectives, and you should be challenging consensus all the time. I think we would have been far better off if more people had challenged shutting down schools, shutting down businesses, making people wear masks, social distancing by six feet, the COVID shot. I think if all those things had been challenged, we would be far better off as a country.
The history of science, if you study it, is actually of scientists being incredibly wrong about almost everything. And when they are initially challenged, they try to shut down anyone who challenges the conventional authority. Go back and study history, this is the truth. So I’m actually skeptical any time science lines up and says this is the answer, you cannot challenge it. I think we need robust uninhibited debate.
This post was originally published on here
