It is currently 03/29/24 4:31 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 13  Next   Page 4 of 13   [ 313 posts ]
Author Message
 Offline
PostPosted: 03/06/18 11:08 am • # 76 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/22/09
Posts: 9530
Using google searches as a measure of beliefs in conspiracy theories or myths is entirely misleading. Often, when something gets reported or mentioned, no matter how ridiculous, people will google it just to see what people are saying. Heck, I may even look up this flat earth thing because I didn't think anyone was taking it seriously anymore. I thought the Flat Earth Society was actually a group who looked at various myths, popular beliefs, etc., with a skeptical eye. They didn't really believe the earth was flat.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 03/07/18 6:58 am • # 77 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 12/27/16
Posts: 10841
Don't use technical jargon when talking to the public ...

1 in 10 in a survey think HTML is an STD


Image


If you're talking tech with Americans, you may want to avoid using any jargon.

A recent study found that many Americans are lost when it comes to tech-related terms, with 11% in a survey saying that they thought HTML — a language that is used to create websites — was a sexually transmitted disease.

The study was conducted by Vouchercloud.net, a coupons website, as a way to determine how knowledgeable users are when it comes to tech terms.

VIDEO: Unboxing the Quirky Spotter multipurpose sensor

"Technology is a huge interest for our user base, and month after month we see thousands of people visiting our site to look for coupons and deals to use when purchasing their favorite tech products," a company spokeswoman said in a statement. "It seems that quite a few of us need to brush up on our tech definitions."

Besides HTML, there were some other amusing findings:

    77% of respondents could not identify what SEO means. SEO stands for "Search-Engine Optimization"

    27% identified "gigabyte" as an insect commonly found in South America. A gigabyte is a measurement unit for the storage capacity of an electronic device.

    42% said they believed a "motherboard" was "the deck of a cruise ship." A motherboard is usually a circuit board that holds many of the key components of a computer.

    23% thought an "MP3" was a "Star Wars" robot. It is actually an audio file.

    18% identified "Blu-ray" as a marine animal. It is a disc format typically used to store high-definition videos.

    15% said they believed "software" is comfortable clothing. Software is a general term for computer programs.

    12% said "USB" is the acronym for a European country. In fact, USB is a type of connector.

    Despite the incorrect answers, 61% of the respondents said it is important to have a good knowledge of technology in this day and age.

The study involved 2,392 men and women 18 years of age or older. The participants were not told that the study was specifically looking into their knowledge of tech terms. They were presented with both tech and non-tech terms and were asked to choose from three possible definitions.

"Hence why a mix of both normal and technology-related words were used," the company said in a statement.

[Updated 9:40 a.m. PST, March 5: The origin and veracity of the survey have come under question by a journalism ethics website. The firm that conducted the survey, 10 Yetis Public Relations, said it stands by its work and has provided the full survey results.

The survey is "100% genuine, and it's a valid survey," said Leanne Thomas, a senior account executive for 10 Yetis Public Relations.

Thomas said the survey was conducted over email over the course of seven days. She said participants of the survey were given no incentive to respond.]

http://www.latimes.com/business/technol ... z2vBNJlFKv


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 03/07/18 9:37 am • # 78 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 05/05/10
Posts: 14091
They should have surveyed 6-17 yr olds. :lol I knew all of those except for SEO. Never heard the term.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 03/07/18 11:41 am • # 79 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/16/09
Posts: 14234
anti-intellectualism has been a strain in US politics since at least the 50's.


Top
  
PostPosted: 03/07/18 11:52 am • # 80 
roseanne wrote:
They should have surveyed 6-17 yr olds. :lol I knew all of those except for SEO. Never heard the term.


It's the subject of choice for spammers who target web developers everywhere. I get at least 3 or 4 offers for SEO services every day.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 03/07/18 6:35 pm • # 81 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 12/27/16
Posts: 10841
roseanne wrote:
They should have surveyed 6-17 yr olds. :lol I knew all of those except for SEO. Never heard the term.

Same here.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 03/07/18 6:54 pm • # 82 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/22/09
Posts: 9530
I knew all the worlds except SEO as well. Now as long as nobody asks me what they mean....


Top
  
PostPosted: 03/07/18 9:14 pm • # 83 
Search-Engine Optimization is just adding code that exploits search engine algorythms to gain ranking and visits to the site. It's actually a good technique for HTML coders to get a new site some ranking on Google right away and instilling confidence in their client. Not all sites need this service but the SEO spammers just push it push it push it ad nauseum.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 03/07/18 11:47 pm • # 84 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/22/09
Posts: 9530
Sidartha wrote:
Search-Engine Optimization is just adding code that exploits search engine algorythms to gain ranking and visits to the site. It's actually a good technique for HTML coders to get a new site some ranking on Google right away and instilling confidence in their client. Not all sites need this service but the SEO spammers just push it push it push it ad nauseum.




Whoop de dooo....so you're bi-lingual. Now try explaining that in English. :g


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 03/08/18 8:16 am • # 85 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 12/27/16
Posts: 10841
Sidartha wrote:
Search-Engine Optimization is just adding code that exploits search engine algorythms to gain ranking and visits to the site. It's actually a good technique for HTML coders to get a new site some ranking on Google right away and instilling confidence in their client. Not all sites need this service but the SEO spammers just push it push it push it ad nauseum.

Exactly - I actually know what Search Engine Optimization is - just never seen it written as SEO.

I actually remember complaints a year ago that some coders were adding "invisible" text to their websites (invisible as in "white on white") so google would pick up on it and direct people to sites that otherwise weren't particularly relevant. No idea of that one is still a common practice or not.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 03/09/18 6:50 am • # 86 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 12/27/16
Posts: 10841
Brilliant campaign ad - of course it won't influence the Trumpettes - after all, many (most?) of them believe that education is a bad thing

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oz4wg4AqEg


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 03/18/18 5:45 am • # 87 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 12/27/16
Posts: 10841
This belongs here

Image


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 03/19/18 12:04 pm • # 88 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 12/27/16
Posts: 10841
Image


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 03/31/18 1:51 pm • # 89 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 12/27/16
Posts: 10841
Republicans Are Becoming Less Educated
Nerds to the left.

By Kali Holloway / AlterNet

There are several key attributes that define the Republican Party in its modern incarnation: its overwhelming whiteness; its self-reported religiosity; its slavish devotion to a man who boasts he could shoot someone and not lose a single vote, thus proving his point. Moving forward, that list should probably also include as a distinguishing factor the fact that the party is less educated than its Democratic political rivals, and growing increasingly more so.

That’s according to a study released earlier this month by the Pew Research Center. The polling organization now finds “the widest educational gap in partisan identification and leaning seen at any point in more than two decades” between Republicans and Democrats. In 1994, the majority of U.S. residents with four-year college degrees leaned or identified as Republican, at 54 percent; just 39 percent of college graduates leaned or identified as Democrats. As of 2017, those numbers have switched exactly, with the majority of college degree holders now leaning Dem-ward.

Voters with post-graduate degrees are even more likely to cast their votes for Democratic politicians, Pew finds. Sixty-three percent of postgraduates identify as Dems or Dem-leaning, while just 31 percent describe themselves as Republican or GOP leaning. That’s a huge difference from the mid-1990s, when postgraduates were almost equally likely to opt for either party, with 45 percent supporting Republicans and 47 percent backing Democrats.

While Dem ranks have filled with more educated voters, Republicans saw increased support from those whose highest education attainment level is a high school diploma or less. “Among those with no more than a high school education, 47 percent affiliate with the GOP or lean Republican, while 45 percent identify as Democrats or lean Democratic,” Pew researchers write in their report. That’s a shift from the late 1990s and early aughts, when a plurality of those without college degrees voted Democratic, 47 to 42 percent.

As always in America, race can’t be removed from these numbers. Since 2009, the first year of Obama’s presidency, Pew researchers have found that “white voters with no more than a high school education have moved more to the GOP.” In the near-decade that has elapsed since then, among voters without a degree, “Republicans have held significant advantages, including a 23-percentage-point lead in 2017 (58 percent Republican, 35 percent Democratic).” Whites with college degrees mostly leaned or identified as Democrats at 49 percent, just slightly outpacing the 46 percent who lean or identify as Republican. Among whites with postgraduate degrees, “59 percent align with Democrats and 37 percent Republicans.”

Pew notes that “white voters continue to be somewhat more likely to affiliate with or lean toward the Republican Party than the Democratic Party (51 percent to 43 percent)."

Image


An obvious contributor to the declining education level within the GOP is the party’s hostility toward higher education, which has grown more ardent in recent years, though dates back decades. In 1952, vice presidential candidate Richard Nixon labeled Democratic presidential contender Adlai Stevenson an “egghead,” a reference to both his intellect and emerging pate. People often point to William F. Buckley as epitomizing a more enlightened and pro-intellectual conservative movement, but that gives posh transatlantic accents too much credit while ignoring what’s actually being stated. In fact, the National Review founder declared in 1963 he “should sooner live in a society governed by the first 2,000 names in the Boston telephone directory than in a society governed by the 2,000 faculty members of Harvard University.” (He also argued American blacks weren’t quite civilized enough to have civil rights, because he was awful on multiple fronts.) In his campaign for California governor, Ronald Reagan suggested that “universities should not subsidize intellectual curiosity,” an argument that collapses in on itself under the weight of its vacuousness. And George W. Bush won infinite points with the anti-intellectualism crowd when he announced he wasn’t much for “sitting down and reading a 500-page book on public policy or philosophy or something.”

The cumulative effect of so much literal big, dumb posturing is a pervasive culture of animosity toward not just education, but sites of learning themselves. Institutions of higher learning are among the primary targets of Republican ire in the “culture wars,” with conservatives imagining universities as liberal indoctrination factories staffed by Marxists who transform impressionable white youth into Communist feminazi agents of their own racial extinction. Last year, Pew researchers discovered that “a majority of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents (58 percent) now say that colleges and universities have a negative effect on the country, up from 45 percent last year.” The same poll found 72 percent of those who identify or lean Democrat believe colleges are a positive impact on society. Similarly, a 2017 Gallup survey found that just one-third of Republicans and GOP leaning voters have “a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in colleges.” Conversely, a majority, 56 percent, of Democrats gave higher education a thumbs up. Republicans and Democrats who expressed no-confidence votes in colleges did so for vastly different reasons: GOPers complained campuses are “too liberal and political,” while Dems said “colleges are too expensive, are not well-run or have deteriorating quality, or that college graduates aren't able to find jobs.”

The GOP opposition to the learnedness is also manifest in overtly anti-education policy and various other consequences. The most plainly obvious might be how Donald Trump’s know-nothingness, along with a healthy dose of racism, ultimately granted him access to the nuclear codes. (“I love the poorly educated!” Trump condescended to supporters during his campaign.) In Wisconsin, Scott Walker is currently fighting to eliminate 13 liberal arts courses of study from the University of Wisconsin because why know stuff you can’t immediately put a price on? Education Secretary Betsy DeVos—those four preceding words only make sense because of the GOP war on education—is scrapping Obama-era rules benefitting college faculty and students. Teachers in a handful of Red States have to forced to walk out on classes in an effort get decent pay and per-student spending. From the White House’s proposal to hack up budgets for science agencies to its attacks against journalists reporting facts and statistics, GOP anti-intellectualism is a driver of a not-small portion of its goals.

College isn’t for everyone, obviously—just ask dropout Bill Gates, whom conservatives also hate. But the devaluation of education and knowledge, and the idea book learnin’ is anathema to societal well-being, is obviously absurd and destructive. As a rule, in every Congress including this majority-Republican body, nearly every member has a four-year degree, and the number of House and Senate legislators who possess postgraduate educations is far higher than in the general population. If nothing else that proves the elite GOP lawmakers actually do value education, at least when they’re thinking about themselves and their children. It’s only their voters they want to keep disinterested in learning, convinced that knowing less is somehow better.

https://www.alternet.org/education/repu ... s-educated

Numerous live links at source


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 04/01/18 7:55 am • # 90 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
Lots of truths in #89 ~ and those truths take root much earlier than college-level ~ some of it is the age-old urban vs rural locales ~ but I'm thinking it goes much deeper ~ the saying "you don't know what you don't know" races into my mind ~

The BIG question for me is where to even start ~ :g

Sooz


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 04/01/18 9:28 am • # 91 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 12/27/16
Posts: 10841
No question that it starts long before college. Much is due to religion (see #62) and then there are simply those who think that education is "bad" (see #65).


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 04/01/18 9:31 am • # 92 
Administrator

Joined: 01/16/16
Posts: 30003
sooz06 wrote:
Lots of truths in #89 ~ and those truths take root much earlier than college-level ~ some of it is the age-old urban vs rural locales ~ but I'm thinking it goes much deeper ~ the saying "you don't know what you don't know" races into my mind ~

The BIG question for me is where to even start ~ :g

Sooz


You started a few years ago, sooz. Think charter school.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 04/01/18 10:02 am • # 93 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
Thanks, oskar ~ I'm very proud of what we are accomplishing ... thanks in very large part to the dedicated professionals who, along with the kidlets, are the real stars ~ children blossom when they are encouraged to express themselves in healthy ways ~ one of my favorite things at school is having [older] students mentoring [younger] students ~

Sooz


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 04/01/18 10:31 am • # 94 
Administrator

Joined: 01/16/16
Posts: 30003
sooz06 wrote:
Thanks, oskar ~ I'm very proud of what we are accomplishing ... thanks in very large part to the dedicated professionals who, along with the kidlets, are the real stars ~ children blossom when they are encouraged to express themselves in healthy ways ~ one of my favorite things at school is having [older] students mentoring [younger] students ~

Sooz


You're up to what, 400-500 kids by now? And don't forget all the parents you're helping.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 04/01/18 10:48 am • # 95 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/22/09
Posts: 9530
I think the reason is a lot simpler than what is posited in #89. The entire Republican platform is based on an extension of the status quo vision of America which is a vision of a white America. A Mom and Apple Pie world with no room for Tante and rice and beans. The more educated people get, the more they realize how impractical and even undesirable that is.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 04/09/18 6:54 am • # 96 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 12/27/16
Posts: 10841
This from last year

Neil deGrasse Tyson Addresses The Current Scientific Illiteracy Crisis

Johny Krahbichler

Last week astrophysicist and science populariser Neil deGrasse Tyson held a speech at Greensboro Coliseum, addressing the current crisis of science illiteracy that we are facing. Here is a summary of that speech:

“Americans overall are bad at science. Scared of math. Poor at physics and engineering. Resistant to evolution. This science illiteracy, is a threat to the nation.

The consequence of that is that you breed a generation of people who do not know what science is nor how and why it works,” he said. “You have mortgaged the future financial security of your nation. Innovations in science and technology are the (basis) of tomorrow’s economy.”

America’s decline isn’t unprecedented, Tyson said. Just look back 1,000 years ago at the Middle East, where math and science flourished in Baghdad. Algebra and algorithms were invented in the Middle East. So were Arabic numerals, the numbers we still use today.

But when a new cleric emerged during the 12th century, he declared math and science to be earthly pursuits, Tyson said, and good Muslims should be concerned about spiritual affairs. The scientists drifted away, and scientific literacy faded from that part of the world. Of 655 Nobel Prizes awarded in the sciences since 1900, Tyson said, only three have been awarded to Muslims.

“Things that seem harmless can have devastating effects,” he said.

Europe dominated science in the centuries that followed. You can see its influence today, Tyson said. Just look at currency: European paper money has carried the pictures of famous scientists. The former German currency bore the picture of the mathematician Carl Friedrich Gauss and his most famous contribution, the bell curve.

“It is a not-so-subtle message from the government that math matters,” Tyson said. “If it’s on your currency, it is part of your culture. You think it. You feel it. Whether or not you’re a scientist or a mathematician, you’re not going to be the person to stand in their way when they’re trying to get math and science done.”

The United States had its own scientific golden age in the last half of the 20th century. The space race and the Cold War drove scientific invention. Popular culture was full of flying cars, monorails, cities of tomorrow and world fairs that celebrated progress and invention.

“You didn’t need special programs to try to convince people that they should like science,” Tyson said. “It was already written large in headlines. You don’t do that without science, technology, engineering and math. And everybody knew it.”

Today, Tyson said, too many Americans mistake clouds for UFOs, believe in alien abductions, reject evolution (known to scientists as the foundation of biology), fear the number 13 and negative numbers, and freak out about supermoons that really aren’t any bigger than regular old full moons.

If national leaders and local school boards want to ignore science, Tyson said, that’s fine with him. (It’s not fine with us at Scientific Literacy Matters.)

But, he said, let’s say he’s the chief executive officer of a corporation that’s looking for a site for its headquarters.

“It’s not going to be in your state,” Tyson said. “The future companies need science literacy for their R&D, for advancements, for innovation. And so your state will fade among the 50. That’s a consequence.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSccnpSWefs

SOURCE


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 08/06/18 4:41 pm • # 97 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 12/27/16
Posts: 10841
Anyone believe in coincidence??

Image


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 08/06/18 8:03 pm • # 98 
Administrator

Joined: 01/16/16
Posts: 30003
Re: # 97

I'm a bit shocked since something like 50% of Canadians have Bachelor degrees and we have a higher rate of first generation immigrants.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 08/09/18 1:36 pm • # 99 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/21/09
Posts: 3638
Location: The DMV (DC,MD,VA)
Coincidence, I think not. Cause and effect more likely.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 11/19/18 11:36 am • # 100 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 12/27/16
Posts: 10841
And it continues ....

Trump’s Interference With Science Is Unprecedented
Experts say that key EPA proposals would meddle with the research process and endanger decades of protective health rules.

ROBINSON MEYER

The Trump administration is breaking with 75 years of precedent by attempting to interfere in how science is practiced by the U.S. government, according to three experts who issued a dire warning to their profession in the journal Science on Thursday. The administration is empowering political staff to meddle with the scientific process by pushing through reforms disguised to look as though they boost transparency and integrity, the experts say.

“It is tempting to conclude that recent proposals for reforming regulatory science are similar to what has occurred in the past,” they write. “They are not.”

“People who are not scientists are telling us how scientific synthesis and analysis should be done,” says Wendy Wagner, a professor of law at the University of Texas at Austin and one of the authors of the paper. “We’re not even getting scientists’ best work. We’re tying scientists’ hands behind their back and not even giving them a shot.”

“It’s a very dangerous place for science and public policy,” she told me. “Politics has gone to a place that should be off limits, and no one is noticing and calling them on that fact.”

The experts’ warning may prove particularly damaging to the reforms’ success. One of the Trump reforms that most worries Wagner claims to be inspired by a 2009 study from the Bipartisan Policy Center and a 2013 report by the Administrative Conference of the United States. A statement from the Environmental Protection Agency also cited both of those studies for authority.

Wagner wrote or co-wrote both of those studies. She said the proposed scientific reform that cites them was “extremely problematic.”

In Thursday’s edition of Science, her warning was co-authored with Liz Fisher, a professor of environmental law at Oxford; and Pasky Pascual, a recently retired data scientist and lawyer for the EPA.

The experts are most critical of a so-called scientific-transparency rule first proposed by Scott Pruitt, the former administrator of the EPA. As I wrote in July, the rule would effectively bar the agency from using public-health research—or any other research that relies on private medical records—when issuing rules to limit water pollution, air pollution, or the use of toxic chemicals. Though Pruitt has resigned, the proposal remains on track to become official EPA policy.

The Pruitt proposal “applies retroactively,” Wagner told me, meaning it would force the EPA to revise—and possibly weaken—nearly every rule protecting human health from air, water, or chemical pollution issued in the agency’s 48-year history.

That proposal has been condemned by nearly 70 scientific and public-health professional organizations, as well as by Harvard, the Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities, and the editors of Science, Nature, and Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The experts also criticize an EPA directive issued by Pruitt in 2017 that remains in effect. That memo barred any university scientist who has received a research grant from the EPA from serving on an EPA scientific-advisory board or acting as a peer reviewer of EPA regulatory analysis. Notably, it did not put industry scientists under the same restrictions, even if they are employed by a company that could be financially hurt by EPA regulation.

Since the rule was issued, “at least a few respected scientists have been removed from EPA science-advisory boards because they were not willing to abandon their EPA-funded research,” the authors write. “To our knowledge, there is no precedent for such a unilateral exclusion of federal grantees as peer reviewers” in either federal law or academic practice, they add.

The experts also criticize the honest Act and the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act, a pair of bills that would constrain the EPA similarly to the proposals above. Both bills passed the House of Representatives last year but seem unlikely to become federal law during this Congress.

Why are all these reforms so unprecedented? According to the authors, each of them places some stage of the scientific process under political direction. For decades, they write, the EPA and other federal agencies have followed a “two-step process” when consulting science: First, scientific staff have reviewed existing research and summarized and synthesized it for political staff. Then that political staff “can accept, ignore, rerun some of the analysis, or reinterpret the results.”

This process essentially erects an apolitical wall between the agency’s scientific staff and its policy makers, and it has been endorsed by the U.S. National Academy of Science, the authors say. But every single one of the proposed EPA reforms breaches that wall, allowing political staff to dictate the terms of scientific analysis and synthesis to scientists.

“It’s extremely problematic to start to limit what the scientific analysis can actually do within the agency. It cuts into the science, a place we’ve never been before,” Wagner told me.

“Of course, science has been under siege in the agencies for decades,” Wagner said. “But it’s never gotten to the point where we’re actually altering the rules to limit the review of the scientific literature.” Since political appointees can issue exemptions to the new policies, they could essentially pick and choose what research scientists are allowed to even consider for synthesis, she said. “So we’ll now be painting a partial picture, and a lopsided picture.”

In the paper, the experts provide a short summary of the use of science in government, demonstrating why the Trump interference is so unprecedented. Wagner told me that the best comparison to the new proposals is an erroneous effort by the Indiana state legislature at the end of the 19th century to establish the value of pi as 3.2: “It’s politics going to a place that should be off-limits. They’re in a place that it shouldn’t be.”

The proposed rules also use terms of great scientific consequence—including replication and transparency—but fail to define their meaning, the experts say. This could allow federal courts to redefine the terms in ways not conducive to the best interests of science.

Rena Steinzor, a law professor at the University of Maryland who was not involved with this paper, told me that she agrees that the Trump administration’s attempted interference was unlike policies that had come before. “He has done all sorts of strange things,” she said of Scott Pruitt, adding that his transparency proposal was “fairly radical.”

“This is not an administration that is at all respectful of science. It’s a serious problem,” Steinzor said.

Above all, Wagner told me that she hopes the broader community of research scientists and technical experts would sit up and pay attention to the EPA proposals and House bills. Many researchers seem to believe that the rules set up surmountable obstacles, she said, when they may actually endanger entire swaths of regulation. If the “transparency” proposal becomes law, it would apply to every other EPA rule, Wagner said. Courts could toss out entire agency regulations if the underlying research fails to meet the new, politically informed standard. “These are mandatory,” she said.

Even if the proposals don’t become law, they point to a depressing “new era” in the federal wars over science, the experts write. As Wagner told me, “What worries us is that we’ve gotten to this point—that this is even on the table.”

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/arc ... od/575377/


Top
  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  

Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 13  Next   Page 4 of 13   [ 313 posts ] New Topic Add Reply

All times are UTC - 6 hours



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
© Voices or Choices.
All rights reserved.