Ars Technica has never been afraid to cover so-called "controversial" issues in science and culture. Here is why we routinely cover them—and why we reject calls for us to be silent on such issues.

I put "controversial" in quotes for a reason. Many of the topics that are supposedly controversial are not really contentious at all among people who are properly informed and rely on a scientific understanding of the physical world around us. However, due to the fact that scientific literacy is sadly lacking on this great planet of ours, "controversy" emerges when individuals, groups, societies, and nations are forced to confront their nonscientific worldviews with the findings of science. Of course, skepticism is a healthy and powerful thing. But skepticism in the face of overwhelming evidence is not healthy, so long as you remember what the word "overwhelming" means. And facts themselves are not controversial.

Through the years I have received countless e-mails and have read hundreds of article comments imploring Ars to keep "political" stuff off the site. Such entreaties most commonly occur in relation to our scientific coverage of climate change or evolution, but also when we cover biological and anthropological matters of gender and sex. (They also come to a lesser extent when we cover the inherently political world of intellectual property, where, coincidentally, there are far fewer facts—but that's outside the scope of this editorial.)

What those petitioners do not realize is that in asking us to be silent, they require that we take a politicized stance. Intentional silence is support for the status quo, and as such, it's inherently political. Note that I'm speaking of intentional silence or avoidance, purposely not covering a topic so as not to bring light to it. Inasmuch as our editorial mission is, in part, to cover the issues relating to science and technology that are most challenging to our culture, it is unthinkable for us not to cover these issues. To reiterate, not covering them would be just as "political" as covering them.

Furthermore, I reject the notion that reporting scientific truth and endeavors can ever be a form of "trolling" or "click bait." The purpose of such reporting is to educate and inform, and in some cases, to help understand. The fact that so many misinformed (and quite often willingly misinforming) readers react negatively to such coverage only underscores the need for this kind of reporting.