Sentences with phrase «in the scientific context more»

In the scientific context more broadly, Google Scholar uses citations to rank and link content, while PageRank determines how we find the world's information based on a similar principle.

Not exact matches

Keith Fargo, the Alzheimer's Association director of scientific programs and outreach, told Business Insider in 2017 that the Alzheimer's report, which would tell me whether I had a mutation on my APOE gene, was more useful in the context of research than it was for predicting who might get the disease.

Questions such as whether the language of «faith» has any authority in a scientific age, or whether mind and life are reducible to atoms and molecules, whether only the tangible is real, whether the human person is anything more than a complex physico - chemical mechanism, whether we are free or determined, whether there is any «objective» truth to the symbols and myths of religion — all of these questions are asked at all only because what is fundamentally at issue is whether there is an ultimate context that gives meaning to cosmic process and significance to our lives in this process.

Stan himself readily admits that he doesn't know the answer in a scientific context, and he agrees that more study is needed.

More unusually for such a book, March also places successive scientific revolutions in the social context in which they took place — such as the dismantling of Isaac Newton's deterministic clockwork universe in the chaos of the Germany of the 1920s.

Importantly, there is little scientific research to date favoring one method over the other, but read more to learn about both theories in context.

More than 60 per cent of Class 7 students can not make a scientific prediction related to the outcomes of a context involving the concept of camouflage in animals

For example, in a recent study of preservice teachers» conceptions of lunar phases, researchers reported pre - to postinstructional gains in scientific conceptions of more than 80 % for participants who used an astronomy simulation in the context of inquiry instruction (Bell & Trundle, 2008).

Such is the chief delight, and paradox, of the show: both strains of early American still - life — Audubon's scientific realism and Peale's painterly illusionism — seem, in the context of western art history, less like «art» and more like «history.»

While others are more qualified to deconstruct here quantitative arguments in pointing out apparently obvious errors when placed in the context of the quality of the argument itself, in the context of relevance pertaining to scientific consensus, Judith Curry's argument loses substance as well as relevance.

I suppose in the abstract this would be dull as doornails if not unhelpful, and so probably it's best to explain it with examples and in the context of climate modeling, but I wanted to describe it in the abstract, just because I think what keeps a lot of people from appreciating climate science (or even why it's hard to appreciate) has to do with very basic ideas about not just «the scientific process» but with the narrower or perhaps more easily describable process of modeling.

An equally important step is to place the areas of ongoing scientific dispute (hurricane strength, extinction impact, pace of sea - level rise) within the broader context of what is not in dispute (more CO2 emissions will heat the world, changing climate patterns and raising seas for centuries to come).

I could imagine that in the context of scientific research, modularity, re-use, etc is even more important than in general software development.

In the context of a debate which inherently gave equal footing to scientific consensus and denialism, Nye said, «The more we mess around with this denial, the less we're going to get done.»

Clean code is always more reusable but in the current context, of scientific papers, all that matters is that the code does the current job correctly and is in a decent (not perfect) state, because it has been «refactored mercilessly» throughout.

More accurately, we can avoid the use of the ambiguous word «uncertain» (which takes on many different meanings depending on context, and most of them are not scientific in origin) by restating your example in the terms of «normal science».

To be useful in a risk context, climate change assessments therefore need a much more thorough exploration of the tails of the distributions of physical variables such as sea level rise, temperature, and precipitation, where our scientific knowledge base is less complete, and where sophisticated climate models are less helpful.

It seems to me that several of those sites post more frequently and promptly on such developments than does RC, often with at least some substantive scientific commentary (e.g. putting new studies in the context of previous work, etc).

I suspect that in a decade's time, when Climategate is viewed in a more complete historical and scientific context, the Guardian's reporting on this issue will be the real footnote.