There are a lot of different species which serve as pollinators besides bees. Afaik, some are more specialised into specific flowers/plants than others and without them, these plants wouldn’t be able to reproduce. (Yucca moths for example.)

Sadly not just the USA.

Critical thinking courses would indeed be very great to have.

Mere factual knowledge transfer is not effective in forming mature and responsible minds if critical thinking is not a focus of education as well.

What is “dumb”? What is “intelligence”?

I think, as long as people have normally functioning brains, it is possible for them to understand. And I think nurturing critical thinking is an important aspect of how to approach this.

You can absolutely present a complicated topic to someone who isn’t educated in that field, or even has low education at all, if you are being humble about how you explain it and try to meet them at eye-level.

You don’t need to give definitive answers, you may give recommendations, but you can always explain a bit and note that there is also a lot more to it than what you explained and that one must take care before making some further conclusions.
Interested people in your audience then have some first basis and grasp of a topic and can take it up on themselves to dive deeper; for example, by asking questions or finding further sources (you might refer them to these).

Sometimes a common error, as people just have a rather ordinary interpretation on the meaning of the word “theory” and sometimes it’s an intentional attempt of discrediting.

Words can mean different things in different contexts. A scientific theory is not the same as the general or ordinary every-day meaning of “theory”.

Classic example and mistake by followers of creationist religions: “evolution is just a theory”.

Well, what if I told you, that, for example, our modern electronic means of communication are part of the wide field of “information theory”?

Compared to other religions, I understand that take, if we neglect stuff like not living up to their own doctrine of, e.g., equal rights between women and men, or the Khalistan movement, which has caused death and abused human rights on several occasions, also by killing civilians.

Still, as most organized religions, it became emergent as a tool of mass control and subjugation. Moral behaviour is not formed by critical thought and self-reflection, but by devotion to some mysterious higher power. Which is and always has been a core issue of problematic behaviour we can so often observe today with religious people. A side-effect is that it has the danger of hindering progress and societal evolution by having a creationism as one of it’s core teachings, as far as I know.

A further form of subjugation, hindering freedom of individual human (and harmless) expression, can be found among the Kakkars. For example the “dress-code” with having uncut hair, cotton undergarments etc…

I could go on. So to make it short, no, religions are usually detrimental for the long term constructive development of humanity and Sikhism is no exception.

Or are they local?

Religion is usually bad, so I don’t have an issue lumping them all together.

You do you. :)

I don’t think that this makes it wrong. As I see it, the meaning of your advice is to prioritize self-care over work. It surely helps with mental and physical health. And I think this also applies to people saving lifes of others like medical doctors. They are also still people, they can also suffer from that kind of work. And I always prefer a doctor who thinks about getting enough sleep and quality time in life over someone who drives themselves mad and makes themselves sick by burdening the whole world on their shoulders.

If they can’t help themselves, how can they help me?
Or, 101 of car crashes, first save yourself before you attempt to save others.

There are also others who help. It’s not one single person’s job to save everyone.

If someone says X, but does Y, this doesn’t mean they are not right about X.

Other example, if someone is raising public awareness about littering in nature and is then caught throwing a plastic bottle into a forest, does that mean they are wrong?

Sure, it’s shitty, but that doesn’t make them wrong in saying that people shouldn’t do it, even if they are not living up to their own words.

It’s the basic driver of all somewhat intelligent life on earth.

Do something - fail - explore alternatives - do it again - success? Keep it. Fail? Back to exploring and retrying.

Whether it’s babies learning to walk or you overcoming difficult situations in life. We should embrace errors and failures of others, as it’s an opportunity for them and us to learn and prevent similar mistakes in the future.

*Except if you want to do good science. Good scientists will identify false confidence and will aim to steer well clear of it

If someone isn’t already doing that, they’re not scientists.

Fake it until you make it?

When dealing with a busy person in a professional context;

• Emails should be as short as possible while still conveying the needed information, don’t make a busy person excavate the relevant info from somewhere near the middle of the fifth paragraph.
• Whenever possible phrase a question in a way that can be answered in one word.

Not a fan of this. Feels like a result of over-optimization in a capitalistic, profti-driven society.

We are humans. Not machines. So treat each other like that. If you like to write a couple of more words to express yourself or some issue in a way that feels representing, go for it. Doesn’t mean to escalate this into a novel, but it’s fine to take a pause and talk more.

Hell, it even goes for people. Leave them a little happier, a little wiser, a little more prosperous than before.

I like that. Thank you. I’ll try.

What if you can’t find the true problem?

Much better version.

Still looking for it.

Form your opinions critically, don’t easily judge.