Root words #3 | Quizalize

“There’s No Such Thing as Sound Science” by By Christie Aschwanden was a lead science writer for FiveThirtyEight. FiveThirtyEight, Science, Dec. 6, 2017 Science is being turned against itself. For decades, its twin ideals of transparency and rigor have been weaponized by those who disagree with results produced by the scientific method. Under the Trump administration, that fight has ramped up again. In a move ostensibly meant to reduce conflicts of interest, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt has removed a number of scientists from advisory panels and replaced some of them with representatives from industries that the agency regulates. Like many in the Trump administration, Pruitt has also cast doubt on the reliability of climate science. For instance, in an interview with CNBC, Pruitt said that “measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do.” Similarly, Trump’s pick to head NASA, an agency that oversees a large portion the nation’s climate research, has insisted that research into human influence on climate lacks certainty, and he falsely claimed that “global temperatures stopped rising 10 years ago.” Kathleen Hartnett White, Trump’s nominee to head the White House Council on Environmental Quality, said in a Senate hearing last month that she thinks we “need to have more precise explanations of the human role and the natural role” in climate change. The same entreaties crop up again and again: We need to root out conflicts. We need more precise evidence. What makes these arguments so powerful is that they sound quite similar to the points raised by proponents of a very different call for change that’s coming from within science. This other movement strives to produce more robust, reproducible findings. Despite having dissimilar goals, the two forces espouse principles that look surprisingly alike: Science needs to be transparent. Results and methods should be openly shared so that outside researchers can independently reproduce and validate them. The methods used to collect and analyze data should be rigorous and clear, and conclusions must be supported by evidence. These are the arguments underlying an “open science” reform movement that was created, in part, as a response to a “reproducibility crisis” that has struck some fields of science.1 But they’re also used as talking points by politicians who are working to make it more difficult for the EPA and other federal agencies to use science in their regulatory decision-making, under the guise of basing policy on “sound science.” Science’s virtues are being wielded against it. What distinguishes the two calls for transparency is intent: Whereas the “open science” movement aims to make science more reliable, reproducible and robust, proponents of “sound science” have historically worked to amplify uncertainty, create doubt and undermine scientific discoveries that threaten their interests. “Our criticisms are founded in a confidence in science,” said Steven Goodman, co-director of the Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford and a proponent of open science. “That’s a fundamental difference — we’re critiquing science to make it better. Others are critiquing it to devalue the approach itself.” Calls to base public policy on “sound science” seem unassailable if you don’t know the term’s history. The phrase was adopted by the tobacco industry in the 1990s to counteract mounting evidence linking secondhand smoke to cancer. A 1992 Environmental Protection Agency report identified secondhand smoke as a human carcinogen, and Philip Morris responded by launching an initiative to promote what it called “sound science.” In an internal memo, Philip Morris vice president of corporate affairs Ellen Merlo wrote that the program was designed to “discredit the EPA report,” “prevent states and cities, as well as businesses from passing smoking bans” and “proactively” pass legislation to help their cause. The sound science tactic exploits a fundamental feature of the scientific process: Science does not produce absolute certainty. Contrary to how it’s sometimes represented to the public, science is not a magic wand that turns everything it touches to truth. Instead, it’s a process of uncertainty reduction, much like a game of 20 Questions. Any given study can rarely answer more than one question at a time, and each study usually raises a bunch of new questions in the process of answering old ones. “Science is a process rather than an answer,” said psychologist Alison Ledgerwood of the University of California, Davis. Every answer is provisional and subject to change in the face of new evidence. It’s not entirely correct to say that “this study proves this fact,” Ledgerwood said. “We should be talking instead about how science increases or decreases our confidence in something.” The tobacco industry’s brilliant tactic was to turn this baked-in uncertainty against the scientific enterprise itself. While insisting that they merely wanted to ensure that public policy was based on sound science, tobacco companies defined the term in a way that ensured that no science could ever be sound enough. The only sound science was certain science, which is an impossible standard to achieve. “Doubt is our product,” wrote one employee of the Brown & Williamson tobacco company in a 1969 internal memo. The note went on to say that doubt “is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’” and “establishing a controversy.” These strategies for undermining inconvenient science were so effective that they’ve served as a sort of playbook for industry interests ever since, said Stanford University science historian Robert Proctor. The sound science push is no longer just Philip Morris sowing doubt about the links between cigarettes and cancer. It’s also a 1998 action plan by the American Petroleum Institute, Chevron and Exxon Mobil to “install uncertainty” about the link between greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. It’s industry-funded groups’ late-1990s effort to question the science the EPA was using to set fine-particle-pollution air-quality standards that the industry didn’t want. And then there was the more recent effort by Dow Chemical to insist on more scientific certainty before banning a pesticide that the EPA’s scientists had deemed risky to children. Now comes a move by the Trump administration’s EPA to repeal a 2015 rule on wetlands protection by disregarding particular studies. (To name just a few examples.) Doubt merchants aren’t pushing for knowledge, they’re practicing what Proctor has dubbed “agnogenesis” — the intentional manufacture of ignorance. This ignorance isn’t simply the absence of knowing something; it’s a lack of comprehension deliberately created by agents who don’t want you to know, Proctor said.2 In the hands of doubt-makers, transparency becomes a rhetorical move. “It’s really difficult as a scientist or policy maker to make a stand against transparency and openness, because well, who would be against it?” said Karen Levy, researcher on information science at Cornell University. But at the same time, “you can couch everything in the language of transparency and it becomes a powerful weapon.” For instance, when the EPA was preparing to set new limits on particulate pollution in the 1990s, industry groups pushed back against the research and demanded access to primary data (including records that researchers had promised participants would remain confidential) and a reanalysis of the evidence. Their calls succeeded and a new analysis was performed. The reanalysis essentially confirmed the original conclusions, but the process of conducting it delayed the implementation of regulations and cost researchers time and money. Delay is a time-tested strategy. “Gridlock is the greatest friend a global warming skeptic has,” said Marc Morano, a prominent critic of global warming research and the executive director of ClimateDepot.com, in the documentary “Merchants of Doubt” (based on the book by the same name). Morano’s site is a project of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, which has received funding from the oil and gas industry. “We’re the negative force. We’re just trying to stop stuff.” Some of these ploys are getting a fresh boost from Congress. The Data Quality Act (also known as the Information Quality Act) was reportedly written by an industry lobbyist and quietly passed as part of an appropriations bill in 2000. The rule mandates that federal agencies ensure the “quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information” that they disseminate, though it does little to define what these terms mean. The law also provides a mechanism for citizens and groups to challenge information that they deem inaccurate, including science that they disagree with. “It was passed in this very quiet way with no explicit debate about it — that should tell you a lot about the real goals,” Levy said. But what’s most telling about the Data Quality Act is how it’s been used, Levy said. A 2004 Washington Post analysis found that in the 20 months following its implementation, the act was repeatedly used by industry groups to push back against proposed regulations and bog down the decision-making process. Instead of deploying transparency as a fundamental principle that applies to all science, these interests have used transparency as a weapon to attack very particular findings that they would like to eradicate. Now Congress is considering another way to legislate how science is used. The Honest Act, a bill sponsored by Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas,3 is another example of what Levy calls a “Trojan horse” law that uses the language of transparency as a cover to achieve other political goals. Smith’s legislation would severely limit the kind of evidence the EPA could use for decision-making. Only studies whose raw data and computer codes were publicly available would be allowed for consideration. That might sound perfectly reasonable, and in many cases it is, Goodman said. But sometimes there are good reasons why researchers can’t conform to these rules, like when the data contains confidential or sensitive medical information.4 Critics, which include more than a dozen scientific organizations, argue that, in practice, the rules would prevent many studies from being considered in EPA reviews.5 It might seem like an easy task to sort good science from bad, but in reality it’s not so simple. “There’s a misplaced idea that we can definitively distinguish the good from the not-good science, but it’s all a matter of degree,” said Brian Nosek, executive director of the Center for Open Science. “There is no perfect study.” Requiring regulators to wait until they have (nonexistent) perfect evidence is essentially “a way of saying, ‘We don’t want to use evidence for our decision-making,’” Nosek said. Most scientific controversies aren’t about science at all, and once the sides are drawn, more data is unlikely to bring opponents into agreement. Michael Carolan, who researches the sociology of technology and scientific knowledge at Colorado State University, wrote in a 2008 paper about why objective knowledge is not enough to resolve environmental controversies. “While these controversies may appear on the surface to rest on disputed questions of fact, beneath often reside differing positions of value; values that can give shape to differing understandings of what ‘the facts’ are.” What’s needed in these cases isn’t more or better science, but mechanisms to bring those hidden values to the forefront of the discussion so that they can be debated transparently. “As long as we continue down this unabashedly naive road about what science is, and what it is capable of doing, we will continue to fail to reach any sort of meaningful consensus on these matters,” Carolan writes. The dispute over tobacco was never about the science of cigarettes’ link to cancer. It was about whether companies have the right to sell dangerous products and, if so, what obligations they have to the consumers who purchased them. Similarly, the debate over climate change isn’t about whether our planet is heating, but about how much responsibility each country and person bears for stopping it. While researching her book “Merchants of Doubt,” science historian Naomi Oreskes found that some of the same people who were defending the tobacco industry as scientific experts were also receiving industry money to deny the role of human activity in global warming. What these issues had in common, she realized, was that they all involved the need for government action. “None of this is about the science. All of this is a political debate about the role of government,” she said in the documentary. These controversies are really about values, not scientific facts, and acknowledging that would allow us to have more truthful and productive debates. What would that look like in practice? Instead of cherry-picking evidence to support a particular view (and insisting that the science points to a desired action), the various sides could lay out the values they are using to assess the evidence. For instance, in Europe, many decisions are guided by the precautionary principle — a system that values caution in the face of uncertainty and says that when the risks are unclear, it should be up to industries to show that their products and processes are not harmful, rather than requiring the government to prove that they are harmful before they can be regulated. By contrast, U.S. agencies tend to wait for strong evidence of harm before issuing regulations. Both approaches have critics, but the difference between them comes down to priorities: Is it better to exercise caution at the risk of burdening companies and perhaps the economy, or is it more important to avoid potential economic downsides even if it means that sometimes a harmful product or industrial process goes unregulated? In other words, under what circumstances do we agree to act on a risk? How certain do we need to be that the risk is real, and how many people would need to be at risk, and how costly is it to reduce that risk? Those are moral questions, not scientific ones, and openly discussing and identifying these kinds of judgment calls would lead to a more honest debate. Science matters, and we need to do it as rigorously as possible. But science can’t tell us how risky is too risky to allow products like cigarettes or potentially harmful pesticides to be sold — those are value judgements that only humans can make.

Got you now 👍 — you don’t want a code, you want ready-made quiz content you can paste into Quizalize so a teacher/class can use it. I’ll generate a proper SSS1 quiz bank (Maths, English, Basic Science) in a clean format. You can copy this into Quizalize “Create Quiz”. 📘 SSS1 QUIZ (READY FOR QUIZALIZE) 🧠 MATHS (10 QUESTIONS) What is 9 × 8? A. 72 B. 64 C. 81 D. 74 Answer: A Solve: 3x = 15 A. 3 B. 5 C. 6 D. 9 Answer: B What is 12²? A. 124 B. 144 C. 132 D. 122 Answer: B Simplify: 18 ÷ 3 A. 3 B. 5 C. 6 D. 9 Answer: C What is the square root of 49? A. 5 B. 6 C. 7 D. 8 Answer: C Find x: x + 7 = 20 A. 11 B. 12 C. 13 D. 14 Answer: C 5 × 5 × 5 = ? A. 125 B. 100 C. 150 D. 75 Answer: A What is 100 ÷ 4? A. 20 B. 25 C. 30 D. 40 Answer: B What is 15 + 17? A. 31 B. 32 C. 33 D. 34 Answer: B What is 10% of 200? A. 10 B. 20 C. 30 D. 40 Answer: B 📘 ENGLISH (10 QUESTIONS) Choose correct spelling A. Recieve B. Receive C. Receve D. Recive Answer: B Opposite of “fast” A. Quick B. Slow C. Sharp D. Rapid Answer: B Synonym of “happy” A. Sad B. Angry C. Joyful D. Tired Answer: C A noun is a name of a… A. Action B. Place/Person/Thing C. Verb D. Adverb Answer: B He ___ to school every day A. go B. going C. goes D. gone Answer: C Plural of child A. Childs B. Childes C. Children D. Childer Answer: C Antonym of “big” A. Large B. Huge C. Small D. Wide Answer: C A verb is a word that shows A. Name B. Action C. Place D. Thing Answer: B She is ___ honest girl A. a B. an C. the D. no article Answer: A Past tense of go A. Goed B. Gone C. Went D. Going Answer: C 🔬 BASIC SCIENCE (10 QUESTIONS) Plants absorb carbon dioxide during A. Respiration B. Photosynthesis C. Digestion D. Movement Answer: B Human breathing organ A. Heart B. Liver C. Lungs D. Kidney Answer: C Water boils at A. 0°C B. 50°C C. 100°C D. 150°C Answer: C Which is a metal? A. Rubber B. Copper C. Wood D. Plastic Answer: B The sun is a A. Planet B. Star C. Moon D. Comet Answer: B Force is measured in A. Joule B. Newton C. Watt D. Kelvin Answer: B Solid → Liquid is called A. Freezing B. Melting C. Evaporation D. Condensation Answer: B Earth revolves around A. Moon B. Mars C. Sun D. Jupiter Answer: C Human blood is pumped by A. Brain B. Heart C. Lungs D. Kidney Answer: B Energy from the sun is called A. Nuclear B. Solar C. Chemical D. Sound Answer: B ⚡ HOW TO USE IN QUIZALIZE Go to Quizalize Click Create Quiz Choose Manual Input Copy each question Paste with options + correct answer Set timer per question (5–10 sec for pressure mode) 🔥 IF YOU WANT NEXT LEVEL I can also: �⁠Turn this into 100-question exam paper �⁠Add hard WAEC/JAMB-level traps Or �⁠simulate inter-house elimination rounds Just say: “upgrade me” 😈

1 .Sand soil • Has course/ large particles • they are larger than those of clay • Loses water quickly • Has less organic matter • Has good aeration • Allows good root penetration • Leaching of nutrients is more in sand soil. • Does not stick when wet 2. Clay soil • Has very fine particles which are closely packed • The soil is sticky when wet and can be moulded into any shape • It holds more water than sand and loam • It has poor drainage • It cracks when dry • It has poor aeration • It does not allow good root penetration 2 .Loam soil • Is a mixture of sand and clay particles • It half clay half sand • It can be easily moulded into a shape but easily crumbles • Holds water for a longer time than sand • It sticks on the hands when wet • It has good drainage • It has good aeration • It allows good root penetration • Loam is the best soil Soil Fertility • When soil has enough plant nutrients it is fertile • Soil fertility is the presence of nutrients in the soil • A farmer can add nutrients to the soil to make it fertile • This is done by applying fertilizers and compost. • A fertiliser is a substance that is added to the soil to increase fertility • Nutrients found in the soil include Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Potassium ( NPK ) • They are called major nutrients or macro nutrients because they are needed in large quantities Minor nutrients • Minor nutrients are needed in smaller quantities • Minor nutrients are also called micro nutrients or trace elements • Examples of minor nutrients are boron, iron, zinc, manganese, magnesium and molybdenum Soil erosion • Is the washing away of top soil by agents such as Water Wind Animals Humans 1. Water: • Water washes away soil when it rains. • Loose soil is washed away into dams and rivers. • Steep slopes also lead to soil erosion. • Ploughing 2 . Wind • The blowing away of soil by wind causes soil erosion. • When people cut down trees wind erosion easily takes place. • Type of soil also leads to wind erosion. Which soil type is easily eroded by wind? 3 . Animals • Animal cause soil erosion by overgrazing. • Overgrazing is when animals eat plant or vegetation leaving the ground surface bare. • Animals walking on the same pathway for a long time make the soil loose. • Animals that live underground also burrow loosening the soil. • This makes soil break easily and get washed away. WATER WATER CONSERVATION Water • Water is important in agriculture • It is used to: Clean farm tools Mould bricks Wash milking equipment Cool machines Provide homes(habitat) for fish Give animals drinking and bathing water Sources of Water Natural sources 1. Natural rains: • rain water from the clouds is a primary source of water. • It is used to water crops such as maize, millet, sorghum and so on during the rainy season. • Rain water that collects into the rivers and dams is used by animals and people for drinking. 2 . Rivers : • Rivers are some of the major sources of water for different activities such as fishing, boat cruising and irrigation. 3 . Streams : • A stream is a small river. • Streams supply water for irrigating garden crops especially in rural areas. • They are also a source of water for animals to drink and bath. Sources of Water 4 . Springs : • Springs are usually found on hilly areas. • They result from pressure of underground streams. • The pressure forces water underground to form a channel to the surface of the soil and flow above the ground. Sources of Water Man made sources Man discovered that water for agriculture was not enough during the rain and cool dry seasons. They decided to make structures which would harvest or collect and store water for future use. 1.Protected well: • Wells are dug in the ground by hand. • They are often lined with bricks and concrete so that they do not cave in. • Protected wells are covered, therefore are safe to drink from. 2 . borehole : • They are deep holes made by drilling machines. • Drilling can be done up to 70 metres deep. • Water is pumped using an electric pump or hand pump. Sources of Water 3 . Dams : • A dam is a large wall or barrier built to hold water to save it for future use. 4 . Weir : • A weir is made by construction a cement brick wall or concrete wall across a river to trap water and eroded soil. • water flows over the wall when the river is inflood. 5 .Water tank : • Is a temporary manmade water source. • Water from a water tank is usually harvested from roof tops or it works along a borehole or protected well as temporary storage. • Water is pumped from the borehole or protected well into the water tank. 6 . reservoir : • A large natural or manmade lake used as a source of water. PLANTS Uses of plants • Fibre for making clothes • Oil for cooking, making paint and chemicals • Sugar for tea • Wood for timber • Refreshing drinks and alcohol • Food for people and animals • Protect the soil from erosion • Plants supply us with fresh oxygen for breathing. • Some plant parts are used as medicine.

Measuring the Effectiveness of police strategies and operations Clearance rates Def: The proportion of incidents known to the police that result in teh identification of a suspect Crime Displacement Def: relocation-due to the effective crime prevention, crime response initiates criminal activity from one local to another Professional Model of Policing Model of police work, reactive, incident driven and centred on random patrol Three Rs: random patrol, rapid response and reactive investigation Community policing Def: policing centred on police-community partnership and problem-solving The three ps: prevention, problem solving and partnership with the proactive role Community-based strategic policing Def: The model incorporates community policing with prevention, crime response and crime attack approaches Community engagement, police services strategic in their policies and operations Crime Analytics Sophisticated programs, and crime maps, provide intelligence to police officers in patrol and investigative units Intelligence-led policing: guided by collection, and analysis of information informs police decision-making Compstat: Increase effectiveness, and efficiency of police service while holding police personnel accountable for crime reduction Predictive policing: statistical analysis, identify time and location likely to occur Limited analytical capacity and not able to provide their officers with real-time information Biased policing certain areas, or persons, being identified as important for police attention in predictive policing How Predictive Policing Software Works The Police and the community Public Attitudes toward and Confidence in the police Community-based strategic policing: Recruitment, and deployment of volunteers in community police stations, storefronts Foot and bike patrols Team policing Restorative Justice Approaches Alternative for addressing, and resolving crime, needs of victims, offenders and the community Victim offender meditation Circle sentencing Community holistic healing programss Family group conferences Crime Prevention and Response Strategies Crime Prevention progemas Aimed at reducing crime, generating community involvement and heightening citizens; perceptions of safety Primary crime prevention programs opportunities for criminal offences and alter those conditions Secondary crime prevention programs focus on areas that produce crime and disorder Tertiary crime prevention programs are designed to prevent youth and adults from reoffending The Broken Windows Approach If minor crimes are left unaddressed in an environment, more serious crimes will emerge (originated in New York City in the 1980’s) “The exictsnce of unchecked and uncontrolled mirror incivilites in a neighbourhood- for example, panhandling, public drunkenness, vandalism and graffiti-produces an atmosphere conducive to more serious crime.” R.H. Burke Zero tolerance policing Zero tolerance policing: Strict order maintenance approach- specific area, coupled with high police visibility and presence Quality of life policing: Increased police visibility improves conditions in an area by targeting disruptive and annoying behaviour Problem Oritented policing (POP) Strategy, the idea that police should address teh cause of recurrent crime and disorder Root causes of recurring problems Solutions to problems Collabortaion with community SARA (scanning, analysis, response and assessment) problem-solving model helps officers identify, and respond to problems with the assistance of agencies, organizations, community groups The Police and Vulnerable/ At risk groups Persons with Mental Illness Patrol officers encountering more and more persons with mental illness (PwMi) Number of these end trragically Number of incidents increased significantly following deinstitutionalization of the mentally ill - in 1960 and 1970 De facto (in fact) mental health workers, first responders Crisis intervention training (CIT) Assertive outreach teams Assertive community treatment (ACT) teams Indigenouse, Vulnerable, and Marginalized women Sexual assault one of most underreported crimed. 1 in 20 incidents report to police. Many Women Do not want to deal with police Believe police would not take allegation seriously Language, cultural barriers Distrust the police Fear repercussions Missing and Murdered Indigenous women Canada, unknown number of missing and murdered indigenous women 2016, federal government announced National inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigennouse women and girls Three goals of MMIWG 1. Finding the truth 2. Honouring the truth 3. Giving life to the truth as a path of healing

Related quizzes

Related quizzes