@ScienceCommunicator@mastodon.social cover
@ScienceCommunicator@mastodon.social avatar

ScienceCommunicator

@ScienceCommunicator@mastodon.social

I live in the #UK & have been awarded with a British Psychological Society accredited PgD in the #science of #psychology by Brunel University (London)

I also have an honour's degree in the conservation of biology (awarded by Cumbria University)

l listen to & recommend \ share many science podcasts
#science #psychology #ClimateChange #corruption #music #democracy #empathy

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. For a complete list of posts, browse on the original instance.

breadandcircuses , to random
@breadandcircuses@climatejustice.social avatar

This is from a recent essay titled "Five Reasons for Environmentalists to Stop Blaming 'Doom & Gloom' Narratives"...

⓵ There is significant evidence that gloomy visions can lead people to take action. A 2023 study found that anger was linked to activism seven times more powerfully than hope, and abundant research finds that fear-based messages have the potential to create the sense of urgency needed for effective action.

⓶ Optimistic messages can feel good, but they can also create complacency and thus prevent us from making the required sacrifices, political choices, and lifestyle changes. Positive narratives can deprive us of the awareness we need in order to respond appropriately to the severity of our crisis.

⓷ The opposition of “success narratives” to “doom and gloom” is a gross oversimplification. A difficult truth can be presented in a positive light; a hopeful story can be told in an offensive manner. It’s not just the content of one’s message that matters; it’s also the way it’s shared, and by whom, and when, and to whom.

⓸ The claim that “doom and gloom” doesn’t lead to action is pedantic and infantilizing. It treats people like consumers of information rather than engaged and ethical citizens.

⓹ Pushing away gloomy visions is a form of what “doomster philosopher” Jem Bendell calls “moodsplaining” in which we are told how to feel about the world. That sort of rhetoric harms the social and political dialogue we need to overcome crises together, and it violates the number one rule of any relationship: honesty.

FULL ESSAY -- https://felixderosen.substack.com/p/5-reasons-to-stop-blaming-doom-and

ScienceCommunicator ,
@ScienceCommunicator@mastodon.social avatar

@breadandcircuses @RhinosWorryMe

"doom & gloom" is a mental state that people naturally try to avoid. That avoidence could be simply not wanting to think about & or denying depressing & fear causing information. Or selectively choosing only the positive, hopeful, narratives or evidence so as to keep "doom & gloom" at bay

"Doom" avoidance behaviour is so common that many world religions have formed as a result. Not factoring in evidence, & even explicit reality, into decision making is common

MariaToft , to AcademicChatter group
@MariaToft@mastodon.green avatar

The transnational Movement for a Free Academia have recently launched to call for an academic system built on an ethics of care, openness, trust and integrity.
Please read and sign the Gothenburg Manifesto at https://freeacademia.org.
Join the Movement for a Free Academia and support our mission by sharing this call. 🌱

@academicchatter

ScienceCommunicator ,
@ScienceCommunicator@mastodon.social avatar

@bhawthorne @MariaToft @academicchatter

I agree that accessibility for all is essential, however, why not use text to speech software?

ScienceCommunicator ,
@ScienceCommunicator@mastodon.social avatar

@NegativeInf @Showroom7561 @climate

The scale of an individuals effect, depends on how many other people do "it".

As one example, if l was say "No thanks! I've brought my own non-plastic bag" to the retailer asking if l want a (plastic) bag, that action didn't stop that plastic bag from being manufactured.

But, if 90% of people stopped using the retailers plastic bags, that retailer would order less plastic bags.

Scale this up on a population level (& do the math).

ScienceCommunicator ,
@ScienceCommunicator@mastodon.social avatar

@NegativeInf @Showroom7561 @climate

The scale of an individuals effect, depends on how many other people do "it".

As one example, if l was say "No thanks! I've brought my own non-plastic bag" to the retailer asking if l want a (plastic) bag, that action didn't stop that plastic bag from being manufactured.

But, if 90% of people stopped using the retailers plastic bags, that retailer would order less plastic bags.

Scale this up on a population level (& do the math).

rbreich , to random
@rbreich@masto.ai avatar

ICYMI: This is Why Rich People Hate the IRS | Robert Reich https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wF3OsZf_hto&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=mastodon

ScienceCommunicator ,
@ScienceCommunicator@mastodon.social avatar

@rbreich

AFAIK, just about all rich people will use their wealth, their status, to avoid paying a reasonable, a proportional amount, of tax. Democracies often become corrupted, "polluted" with the agendas of the 'money mad'

Plutocrats (with a cognitive bias) ignore their social responsibilities, use their "power" (money, social connections) to serve their own purposes and thereby increase poverty and nurture class conflict, and corrupt societies with greed and hedonism.

Transparency is key

rbreich , to random
@rbreich@masto.ai avatar

Trump’s tax giveaway added $2 trillion+ to the deficit. He's campaigning on making the cuts permanent, which would cost another $3 trillion with over 60% of the benefits going to the richest 20%. Does that sound like a champion of the working class to you?

ScienceCommunicator ,
@ScienceCommunicator@mastodon.social avatar

@rbreich @JonChevreau

But, facts & figures don't convince Trump supporters. They trust the rich guys that say they're against the rich elite establishment (what choice do they have in a corporatocracy?)

jeffowski , to random
@jeffowski@mastodon.world avatar

ScienceCommunicator ,
@ScienceCommunicator@mastodon.social avatar

@jeffowski @hanny

But, that affect is more ignorant yocals believing in pseudoscience (e.g., the misleading advertising & politics)

furqanshah , to AcademicChatter group
@furqanshah@mstdn.science avatar

What do we want? Open science + transparent peer review!

When do we want it? Now!

Yet, reviewers will hide behind the cloak of anonymity. As an editor, there is little to be done about such behaviour. 😔

🧪

@academicchatter @academicsunite @ScienceCommunicator @openscience

ScienceCommunicator ,
@ScienceCommunicator@mastodon.social avatar

@furqanshah @academicchatter @academicsunite @openscience

Considering that the broad method of science is: Research, publish & peer review.

A transparent peer review is reviewers referencing the scientific literature whilst critically evaluating any paper.

Why does it matter if the reviewers choose to be anonymous or not?

"Yet, reviewers will hide behind the cloak of anonymity"

Please explain why this is a problem? (assuming they adhere to scientific protocols)

ScienceCommunicator ,
@ScienceCommunicator@mastodon.social avatar

@clarablackink @furqanshah @academicchatter @academicsunite @openscience

If the reviewer is adhering to scientific standards, e.g., backing up their statements with references, that qualifies them.

"The reason science works so well is partly that built-in error-correcting machinery.... You must prove your case in the face of determined, expert criticism. Diversity and debate are valued. Opinions are encouraged to contend — substantively and in depth" (Carl Sagan)

ScienceCommunicator ,
@ScienceCommunicator@mastodon.social avatar

@clarablackink @furqanshah @academicchatter @academicsunite @openscience

Generally, people need to prove that they understand the subject. E.g., qualified electricians, Doctors

However, authority isn't a qualification! I'm not a trained general practitioner (AKA a medical Doctor). But, more often than not, & as someone that has studied the science of air pollution, l try to educate Doctors about the harm caused by wood smoke inhalation, for example.

ScienceCommunicator ,
@ScienceCommunicator@mastodon.social avatar

@jorgeapenas @furqanshah @academicchatter @academicsunite @openscience

In the context of reviewing the academic literature, I think the freedom for an individual to choose to be anonymous, or not, is a healthy 'middle ground'. For example, if someone has a broad understanding of the natural sciences, they have the background knowledge to be effective reviewers. They may wish to gain a social reputation as such, therefore, they may choose to reveal their personal identities on the internet.

ScienceCommunicator ,
@ScienceCommunicator@mastodon.social avatar

@yacc143 @furqanshah @academicchatter @academicsunite @openscience

A conflict of interests is one of the biggest threats to biases in research & what research is published, or not. On this very subject, there are people that do not want a transparent scientific platform because of their own personal circumstances

Funding is another concern. e.g., 'Big pharma' only being interested in developing drugs that have a big 'pay back'

Is there a book that discusses the social aspects of academia?

breadandcircuses , to random
@breadandcircuses@climatejustice.social avatar

[Thread, post or comment was deleted by the author]

    •
    ScienceCommunicator ,
    @ScienceCommunicator@mastodon.social avatar

    @breadandcircuses @CopernicusECMWF @OceanTerra @degrowthuk @kathhayhoe @RARohde

    Monitoring the effects of global heating is important (e.g., glacial melt), but, more science isn't going to change the sociopolitical & socioeconomic world order (because it hasn't)

    Business as usual is scientists warning about publicising the evidence that climate change is happening, & yet, the general population have not reduced CH4 & CO2 emissions

    Justice https://www.planetcritical.com/p/climate-is-a-justice-issue-naomi-oreskes

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • random
  • test
  • worldmews
  • mews
  • All magazines
    •