According to Mashable,
the Trump administration’s media blackout flies in the face of
integrity policies EPA officials agreed to uphold when they accepted
The site shared the text of the EPA’s integrity policy,
which says that, in order to promote “scientific and ethical
standards,” employees must maintain “communications with the public.”
The policy adds that transparency is key to “promoting a
culture of scientific integrity” and explicitly states all EPA officials
are prohibited from “suppressing, altering, or otherwise impeding the
timely release of scientific findings or conclusions.”
Adhering to these core principles becomes not just difficult but impossible if the president has legally bound you to silence. Read more
august 14, 2016 (10/100) ☁️
spending d sunday reviewing for my midterms 😅 here r my origin of the solar system notes wooo hope u guys have a productive week ahead! wish me luck i hav 2 midterms tomorrow rip ty!
I really do believe that at least part of the problem of people distrusting science has to do with how we as scientists portray ourselves.
We have actively created a system where we derive authority from being seen as better/smarter/more competent than everyone else and then when people ask why they should trust us we respond with a very condescending version of ‘because SCIENCE IS FACT’ or something along those lines.
Like, consider how that would feel from the outside? Here are a small group of people who you have never met/interacted with who sequester themselves in impenetrable ~elite institutions that you can’t access and don’t feel party to who then tell you that what they say is fact because they’re smarter and better educated than you. And if you ever try to question them (no matter how reasonable your objections may be/seem to you) they condescendingly pat you on the head and say something like ‘don’t worry we know better. you can’t possibly understand what we do.’
Why the hell would you trust them?
No one likes being told that they’re not smart enough to understand something, and no one likes feeling excluded from something they’ve essentially been asked to accept sight unseen.
I don’t really have a solution to this, except some vague notion about working harder to portray scientists as people working a job, rather than geniuses who are above it all.
And like trying harder to understand where people are coming from when they question science. And remembering that being better educated than most doesn’t make us smarter than most. It just makes us better trained in certain types of thinking.
I just think we need to keep in mind what we are asking of people. Which is to put a whole hell of a lot of faith in us.
The other night, @emilociraptor was walking me home from work bc I was dizzy, and we were talking about methods of communication. I mentioned that I prefer asynchronous communication, i. e. e-mails, twitter @replies, tagging in tumblr posts, etc. They were shocked, they had never thought about methods of communication in this way.
I figured there are definitely other people who could use this term to explain their preferred methods of communication. I learned about it through a class in my masters program, for library science, where we were discussing different methods that people contact the reference desk in a library.
There are the synchronous methods of communication: in person, phone calls, text messages, live chats.
Then there are the asynchronous, which in the library setting mostly refers to emails.
In asynchronous communication, there is an understanding that the other person does not have to reply immediately and often, it is a surprise if they do so. The assumption is that they are not sitting down at that method of communication at the same time, so there will be a delay in receiving a response.
In interpersonal relations, there are the other methods I mentioned up there ^ where it is the same assumption. When you @reply someone on twitter, you don’t except them to respond immediately. Sometimes, you don’t expect them to reply at all. Same with many replies to tumblr posts; it can be a way of saying “I see this, I have something to add or respond to in regards to this post, but this may be a one-way street.” Sometimes it can be as simple as a message of support on a post about someone being in a bad place, where liking the post might be read in a different way.
Synchronous communication, which can apply to various forms of chat, text messaging (which can go either way, depending on the people using it), phone calls, and others, can be hard for a lot of people. I personally suffer from chronic fatigue, and I find many synchronous communication to be tiring, so I limit it and try to only participate in it when it gives me a positive feeling.
For example, I am currently in a group chat with a handful of other people, and it is a good mid-point between synchronous and asynchronous for me: I can follow the chat, but there is never a need to reply. I only have to reply when I want to, or when I have something to say.
So, I give you these terms, tumblr! Use them to help people understand why you hate picking up the phone when they call, or when you feel like you have to apologize for being bad at responding to facebook messages or texts. Overall, remember that you don’t owe anyone your time, energy, or attention.
Do you ever just think about how language is basically random noises we make but because we have reached a consensus with others of our species on what those noises mean we are able to communicate with one another
Unlike most tweens, Avery is suing the federal government.
She’s the second-youngest of 21 plaintiffs, ages 9 to 20, in Juliana v. United States, a case filed in Eugene in 2015 on the grounds that the federal government has knowingly endangered them by promoting the burning of fossil fuels. If climate change threatens their future, they reason, the government has violated their constitutional right to due process.
i’m not sure why everyone thinks anarchocommunism would be some technology-less society where we live … completely isolated from everyone ….
we could massively improve public transportation and transportation of goods if we weren’t so intent on fucking each other over to survive, and were instead interested on working together to survive in the best possible way.