Sentences with phrase «argument over the science»

They will not be engaging in argument over the science as much as they will be pumping up the «suppression».

Not exact matches

As Steven Weinberg says: «Over many centuries science has weakened the hold of religion, not by disproving the existence of God but by invalidating arguments for God based on what we observe in the natural world.

Argument *: If you really believe science is over, why do you still write about it?

Argument: Reductionist science may be over, but a new kind of emergent science is just beginning.

In a column in The New York Times last October science writer George Johnson likened Hawaiian's opposition to the telescope to the Catholic Church's oppression of Galileo, and suggested that the indigenous protesters were pawns of environmentalists who «have learned that a few traditionally dressed natives calling for the return of sacred lands can draw more attention than arguments over endangered species and fragile ecosystems.»

By tracing the development of what we now call the «scientific method» — an approach, developed over centuries, that emphasizes experiments and observations rather than reasoning from first principles — he makes the argument that science, unlike other ways of interpreting the world around us, can offer true progress.

[Box 26] AAAS and Congress, lobbying, 1959 - 1987 Congress, 1986 Arctic, 1981 Legislative Branch, 1981 - 1984 Executive Branch, pre-1985 OMB Circular, 1983 Science Policy: A Working Glossary, 1978 Science Policy Task Force Congressional Research Service, 1986 Environmental Protection Agency House Committee on Science and Technology, 1986 Office of Management and Budget Office of Science and Technology Policy, 1982 Office of Technology Assessment, 1980 Senate State Department (2 Folders) AAAS Science, Engineering, and Diplomacy Fellows, Lunch and Orientation, 1983 Tax Bills, 1981 Edwards vs Aguilard, Louisiana Creationist Suit, 1986 Edwards vs Aguilard, NAS amicus brief Edwards vs Aguilard, People for the American Way amicus brief Edwards vs Aguilard, Supreme Court arguments Hutchinson vs. Proxmire, amicus brief, 1978 Southeastern College vs. Frances Davis, amicus brief, 1979 State Department, 1976 - 1984 Human Subjects Research, 1979 Controversy over Inhaber Article in Science, 1979 Three Mile Island, 1979 Federal appropriations, universities and pork barrel projects

\ n \ nWhile some may find it morally wrong to use an embryo to carry out science, if the embryonic mass is given over to science willingly by the live adults involved in its formation, then all argument is moot.

On the other hand if you start with fundamental science then the argument over the big picture ended some time in the past.

If you really look carefully at the arguments and the science, the skeptics have it all over the true believers.

The economic argument is not a climate science issue, it is a resulting issue, a policy issue, combined with a slew of other issues such as peak oil and industry gone wild that long term has negative return on investment written all over it, due to short term thinking inconsiderate of the ramifications of egregious exploitation of the earths resources for the benefit of a few at the cost of many.

i.e. no change over the last decade... (unfortunately these updates usually does not make a Science or Nature paper in particular if the bottom line of the argument has shifted...)

In this case, science does tell us what to do (reduce CO2 emissions: we can argue about the amount and rate but this argument should be along the lines: «do we reduce by 70 % or 90 % over current levels by 2050?).

In the interview, with Andy Balaskovitz, I described the value of having a public more attuned to how science works — that new knowledge is what's left over after peers chew on each others» data and analysis, and that argument and uncertainty are normal, that science is a journey, not a set of facts:

If the context behind the arguments is not included, the public just sees dispute, and can simply lump a science fight with those over abortion, gun rights, energy policy and other issues framed by ideology or values as much as (or more than) data.

Drawing on case studies of past environmental debates such as those over acid rain and ozone depletion, science policy experts Roger Pielke Jr. and Daniel Sarewitz argue that once next generation technologies are available that make meaningful action on climate change lower - cost, then much of the argument politically over scientific uncertainty is likely to diminish.26 Similarly, research by Yale University's Dan Kahan and colleagues suggest that building political consensus on climate change will depend heavily on advocates for action calling attention to a diverse mix of options, with some actions such as tax incentives for nuclear energy, government support for clean energy research, or actions to protect cities and communities against climate risks, more likely to gain support from both Democrats and Republicans.

Perhaps I could have chosen my words more carefully to avoid the phrase «dogmatically insist» and to avoid implying an equivalence between those who are convinced by the core science (which, for all practical purposes, includes myself) and the likes of Andrew Bolt, but to get one's knickers in a twist over that phrase whilst ignoring my main argument is a serious misreading of my post — or, given Chris Warren's background, a symptomatic reading of ym post.

The substantial point here being that even if one denies climate science comprehensively, one can nonetheless be committed to the idea that such a perspective needs to make the argument, and to win it, in order for it to prevail over policy - making.

«Eric Steig: As someone who has had papers professionally peer reviewed in my own discipline — climate science — I find this argument over anonymity for reviewers baffling.

On blogs like Dr. Curry's I continually see learned, and heated, arguments over the meaning of fluctuations in the «annual temperature of the earth» in the hundredths of a degree range (sometimes thousandths), with data plotted over hundreds or thousands of years, while noticing that there doesn't seem to be a DEFINITION of the «Annual Temperature of the Earth» and that the climate science community, collectively, would be hard pressed to provide me with an «Annual Temperature of Bob's House» with a credible and defensible resolution and precision of + / -.01 degree, using an instrumentation system of their choice.

Carrot Eater can sell you a terrific Rabettese translator, but somewhat more clearly, as Eli said over at Skeptical Science: Assume Eli accepts Roger and Humanity's (see comment 1) argument.

They think that just because they have an argument they win the debate, so the debate is over and the science is settled.

Notice its headline at the top says «Balancing The Argument Over Climate Change ``, not «attacking mainstream science».

It's simply ain't a credible argument that 49 ex-NASA astronauts, administrators, scientists [including a meteorologist] & technical specialists w advanced science & / or technical degrees & a combined total of OVER 1000 YRS at NASA - could all be ignorant / naïve about science — especially coming from a division of NASA [IE: GISS].

Arguments over data and methods are the lifeblood of science, and are not instances of misconduct.

The argument over whether to detrend or not is an ongoing one climate science, but I'm pretty certain signal processing theory would say «you should detrend».

The more people understand from an early age that science advances in stutter steps through testing, failure, and argument, the less likely they'll be to interpret some of the persistent disputes over important facets of global warming to mean society can simply sit back and wait for a magical solution...

Editor's note: Once upon a time, political arguments over the content of science education focused on a single topic: evolution.While it would be wonderful to think that such debates ended with the Scopes Monkey Trial, I live in Missouri... where some members of our legislature still think our science classrooms are the proper places for ideological debates.

The most damning thing the investigators could muster was that there was «some concern» over the statistical methods used, but that's not scandalous at all; there's always some argument in science over methodology.

«Both cases, as well as the broader international controversies over whaling and sealing in the context of which they arose, illustrate the persuasive power of the «appeal to science»: enlisting scientific objectivity and rigour to underpin the credibility of legal arguments and legal norms,» says the abstract.