181–190 of 312 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Came here to make the same point: It's not appropriate for the official social media account of a government agency to tweet political content that criticizes the current President. That's going too far, and I'm not surprised at all that they were told to shut it.
Showing the number of people who attended the inauguration is a criticism, all of a sudden? That's some seriously thin skin.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Came here to make the same point: It's not appropriate for the official social media account of a government agency to tweet political content that criticizes the current President. That's going too far, and I'm not surprised at all that they were told to shut it.
Showing the number of people who attended the inauguration is a criticism, all of a sudden? That's some seriously thin skin.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The explanation is basically the Trump administration wants to control all media messaging (as most administrations do), but is so far behind on staffing the posts at EPA and others that the secretary level people who should be in place to handle this haven't been nominated in most cases, let alone confirmed. The fact that their solution to their own failure to get people in place is to make things worse by releasing…
but is so far behind on staffing the posts at EPA He's been in office five days . How rushed of a hiring process are you seeking?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is different than every Presidential transition of power, how? It's the aims of the control, and the utter brazenness with which the new administration attempts to manipulate facts and reality in general that are different. There's never been an administration (well, maybe in the 19th century; but I mean, not since the dawn of modern journalistic reporting) that blatantly and transparently lied about such public…
Don't forget that he's press secretary for the one guy who actually made accurate polling assessments prior to the election. If your source on disproving the "millions of illegal votes" is one of the same sources that thought Hillary was going to win in a landslide, then you have nothing to say. I'm not going to say I agree there were illegal votes, but I am holding out for better evidence.
The idea that no outlet which was incorrect in predicting election results can be used as a credible source for post-election reporting is preposterous. Where do you get your news, if you abandon sources the instant that they make an incorrect prediction? Do you ignore meteorologists because they were wrong about that big thunderstorm that one time?
[0] https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-12-14/trump...
I am looking for reasonable explanations for this, but keep coming up blank. I grew up in a country where this sort of censorship and fact hiding was the norm, and hated it. I now live in a country that is much freer, but for the first time since 1938, no longer has an active US ambassador, with no replacement in sight, since President Trump fired all US ambassadors to foreign countries on the afternoon of his inaugu…
Everyone these days is ostensibly "pro-science," just as many anti-vaxxers claim to be "pro-vaccine." The administration merely wants to review the scientific integrity of the EPA's work, and prevent the likelihood of any erroneous, possibly non-scientific data from being spread.
I am looking for reasonable explanations for this, but keep coming up blank. I grew up in a country where this sort of censorship and fact hiding was the norm, and hated it. I now live in a country that is much freer, but for the first time since 1938, no longer has an active US ambassador, with no replacement in sight, since President Trump fired all US ambassadors to foreign countries on the afternoon of his inaugu…
I actually think the fact that many people in the US coming from less free/developed countries is a problem (not the fact that they are here). They might come here thinking..wow this is great..this must be how it's supposed to be (together with the existing citizens who constantly hear they live in the greatest/free-est country on the planet). While when e.g. a Northern European comes here they are amazed by what kin…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Peer review most certainly does not determine scientific truth.
This is a vacuous statement. Science is an inductive exercise and suffers from the problem of induction. It's difficult to make the case that real truth can come from it at all. In lieu of this, peer review is a very good heuristic for sifting out bunk science.
I think it's fair to point out that peer review doesn't determine scientific truth, because that would get the causal relation in reverse.
Consensus has little to do with objective truth, but it is a useful heuristic as you say.
We went through this sort of censorship of government scientists and departments in Canada with the conservative Harper government: http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/faq-the-issues-around-muzz... The US should not put up with any, even a temporary form of such censorship of the parts of the government that are doing scientific research and environmental stewardship. There should be another march in a week or two to s…
Fwiw at the march in Boston there were chants for science...honestly something I thought I'd never hear.
Very sad that's something we need to be screaming in the streets.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The explanation is basically the Trump administration wants to control all media messaging (as most administrations do), but is so far behind on staffing the posts at EPA and others that the secretary level people who should be in place to handle this haven't been nominated in most cases, let alone confirmed. The fact that their solution to their own failure to get people in place is to make things worse by releasing…
but is so far behind on staffing the posts at EPA He's been in office five days . How rushed of a hiring process are you seeking?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmations_of_Barack_Obam...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a vacuous statement. Science is an inductive exercise and suffers from the problem of induction. It's difficult to make the case that real truth can come from it at all. In lieu of this, peer review is a very good heuristic for sifting out bunk science.
I don't think it's fair to call a correct statement vacuous. More nuanced than it appears, and easily misinterpreted maybe. I think it's fair to point out that peer review doesn't determine scientific truth, because that would get the causal relation in reverse. Consensus has little to do with objective truth, but it is a useful heuristic as you say.