Sentences with phrase «accepting scientific knowledge»

You are in the first stage of accepting scientific knowledge (anthropogenic climate change).

In order for it to advance to generally accepted scientific knowledge it must be supported by empirical scientific evidence (Feynman) and must be falsifiable (Popper).

As a result, it has progressed from just being a hypothesis to becoming generally accepted scientific knowledge.

Not exact matches

Pardon me, but «our» knowledge, if you wish to call it that, is based on repeatable, empiricle evidence that is accepted by 99 % of the scientific community.

Nor can we accept the idea that the natural is the realm of scientific inquiry, while the supernatural is what lies beyond possible scientific knowledge.

In this instance, the Sorbonne Faculty «accepted and approved» scientific knowledge, even knowledge contrary to Scripture, for it was but «philosophical supposition.»

The kerygma, says Bultmann, otherwise called the gospel message, must be accepted in its purity, free of the distortions of mythology and free of the falsifications imposed on it when it is confused with scientific knowledge about the natural world.

You accept scientific technique when you fly, have DNA tests, etc. yet reject that same knowledge when it shows that the bible was written in ignorance by middle eastern sheepherders thousands of years ago and modified significantly both deliberately — selective inclusion / exclusion, tailored for desired message — and unintentionally — translation and transliteration errors.

Recently, even those who accept physico - chemical entities as a basis of all scientific knowledge have realized that something more may be involved in them than the properties of mass, energy, etc., attributed to them in classical theory.

I can not accept the idea that not all sources of knowledge are equal, and that training, experience and the scientific method allow others to speak with authority that exceeds mine, derived from armchair speculation and casual reading.

If the Supreme Court had consulted the accepted body of scientific knowledge, however, they would have found that the companies» religious beliefs were not in conflict with the birth control methods they opposed, says Pratima Gupta, a doctor at the San Francisco Medical Center and former board member of the pro-choice network Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health.

With these concepts in mind, the Center employs the following three - stage process: • Knowledge Synthesis — a critical analysis of cutting - edge science and program evaluation research to identify core concepts and evidence - based findings that are broadly accepted by the scientific community.

To this end, the Center has developed a three - stage knowledge transfer process: (1) Knowledge Synthesis — a critical analysis of cutting - edge science and program evaluation research to identify core concepts and evidence - based findings that are broadly accepted by the scientific community; (2) Knowledge Translation — the identification of gaps in understanding between scientists and the public, and the development of effective language to communicate accurate scientific information in a way that can inform sound public discourse; and (3) Knowledge Communication — the production and dissemination of a wide variety of publications and educational media via print, the Web, and in - person preseknowledge transfer process: (1) Knowledge Synthesis — a critical analysis of cutting - edge science and program evaluation research to identify core concepts and evidence - based findings that are broadly accepted by the scientific community; (2) Knowledge Translation — the identification of gaps in understanding between scientists and the public, and the development of effective language to communicate accurate scientific information in a way that can inform sound public discourse; and (3) Knowledge Communication — the production and dissemination of a wide variety of publications and educational media via print, the Web, and in - person preseKnowledge Synthesis — a critical analysis of cutting - edge science and program evaluation research to identify core concepts and evidence - based findings that are broadly accepted by the scientific community; (2) Knowledge Translation — the identification of gaps in understanding between scientists and the public, and the development of effective language to communicate accurate scientific information in a way that can inform sound public discourse; and (3) Knowledge Communication — the production and dissemination of a wide variety of publications and educational media via print, the Web, and in - person preseKnowledge Translation — the identification of gaps in understanding between scientists and the public, and the development of effective language to communicate accurate scientific information in a way that can inform sound public discourse; and (3) Knowledge Communication — the production and dissemination of a wide variety of publications and educational media via print, the Web, and in - person preseKnowledge Communication — the production and dissemination of a wide variety of publications and educational media via print, the Web, and in - person presentations.

And it's pretty clear (though not accepted by everyone) that ideological identity counts more than scientific knowledge when voters are choosing policy positions.

In other words, do you have a published peer reviewed scientific journal that has been accepted by the scientific community that falsifies scientific knowledge (the scientific theory of «dangerous» anthropogenic climate change and the scientific fact of a warming earth)?

But most of the informed scientific community that are accepting this are doing so in the knowledge that it is valid research using legitimate methodologies with credible results.

But to do so constructively requires some knowledge of accepted scientific facts on both sides, otherwise the conversation descends into a slanging match which amounts to no more than gainsaying what the other person said (to borrow from Monty Python) and, if you can't see that (some of) this is absolute tosh, then that's likely to happen.

I have not used the term «denier» in this thread, but can answer none the less: to me it is someone who selectively shops in scientific knowledge and only accepts those parts that fit with his / her ideological stance.

«Scientific knowledge is the intellectual and social consensus of affiliated experts based on the weight of available empirical evidence, and evaluated according to accepted methodologies.

One way a covered entity may demonstrate that it has met the standard is if a person with appropriate knowledge and experience applying generally accepted statistical and scientific principles and methods for rendering information not individually identifiable makes a determination that the risk is very small that the information could be used, either by itself or in combination with other available information, by anticipated recipients to identify a subject of the information.

As discussed above, such a determination must be made by a person with appropriate knowledge and expertise applying generally accepted statistical and scientific methods for rendering information not identifiable.

We note that in the final rule, we reformulate the standard somewhat to require that a person with appropriate knowledge and experience apply generally accepted statistical and scientific methods relevant to the task to make a determination that the risk of re-identification is very small.

(1) A person with appropriate knowledge of and experience with generally accepted statistical and scientific principles and methods for rendering information not individually identifiable:

(6) Licensees must maintain current knowledge of scientific, professional, and legal developments within their area of claimed competence, and use that knowledge, consistent with accepted clinical and scientific standards, in selecting current data collection methods and procedures for an evaluation.

Her research along with co-investigators Shannon Wanless, Applied Developmental Psychologist at University of Pittsburgh and Roger Weissberg, Distinguished Professor of Psychology and Education and Chief Knowledge Officer for the Collaborative for Academic, Social and Emotional Learning (CASEL) has been accepted through scientific peer review for publication in the Fall / Winter Issue of The School Community Journal.