Sentences with phrase «as much scientific»

Such tenuous claims of attribution have about as much scientific standing as Pat Robertson saying that Hurricane Katrina was the result of the vengeful wrath of God... Like Pat Roberson's attribution of Katrina to the wrath of God in punishment for our sins, Krugman's attribution of unrest in the Middle East to the wrath of Climate in punishment for our sins is in one sense just emotive commentary from an uninformed pundit.

My hope is the term Black Swan will soon be regarded with as much scientific respect as «the dog ate my homework.»

Stephen My hope is the term Black Swan will soon be regarded with as much scientific respect as «the dog ate my homework.

This «new» cycle — which Hartmann calls the North Pacific Mode (NPM)-- has been hinted at before, but hasn't received as much scientific attention as its cousin.

Such attribution has as much scientific credibility as fitting an exponential to a segment of the forward face of a shoaling random wave.

Coby, I have as much a scientific interest in climate change as anyone else but it doesn't seem to me that after the NAS report the «Hockey Season is over» at all.

Veterinary shampoos have really come a long way - these medicated shampoos have just as much scientific research leading up to their development as many of the human shampoos we use to wash our own hair.

Truth be known, there is not near as much scientific research in veterinary medicine as there is in human medicine.

The intent is to provide as much scientific information as possible on different dental materials and aspects of dentistry where controversy exists and scientific clarification would be of benefit to patients, staff, dentists, physicians and scientists in making informed judgements.

The book is as much a scientific exploration of how the canine brain might function as it is a deeply personal story about Berns's relationship with dogs as pets and colleagues.

I can use my «faith» to deny the «theory» of evolution even though there is as much scientific data supporting evolution as there is supporting the «theory» of gravity.

I have as much scientific education as him, and I think he has more faith than I do, to believe that the highly complex designs around us randomly evolved, in any time period at all.

Basically there is as much scientific fact that Santa Claus exists as there is that HE exists and I stopped believing in santa long ago.

Not exact matches

Finally, for as much as we want to believe that polls are a scientific reflection of reality, polls can also affect reality.

This wasn't so much an art project as a scientific experiment.

So thinking of a particular shift within the system as «anti-capitalist» makes about as much sense as thinking that the discrediting of a particular scientist or the fall of a particular scientific theory amounts to the downfall of science, as a whole.

As a result, much of the language around management and leadership has — or aspires to — a technical, scientific tone.

Still, while other companies like Richard Branson's Virgin Galactic and Jeff Bezos's Blue Origin are planning much of their business around space flights for the super wealthy, SpaceX's model is primarily to serve as a vehicle for scientific missions, satellite launches, and trips to the International Space Station.

The only other comment I'd have is that whilst he meets a much higher standard of scientific approach than the snake oil dressed as financial advice elsewhere, the core testing methods used are opaque and (as far as I can tell) not peer reviewed or made available for scrutiny.

It is not exactly «atheism» that is the default position so much as that there is no need to appeal to divine agency in a scientific account of nature.

Thomas was not so much a doubter as he was an empiricist; that is, he was something of a scientific man.

Meanwhile, to Hawking's supporters who suggest that I am not owning up to his scientific «proofs,» I believe airwx has already said it best for me — he's a THEORETICAL physicist, and having read some of his work, I'm smart enough to know that much of what he says about God is an exercise in jumping to conclusions, even as sound as much of his scientific work is.

Perhaps it is now time to recognize that the third world - changing scientific achievement of the last century is not the unmitigated good that much of Western culture claims it is — and that treating the sexual revolution as a unambiguous, indeed undeniable, boon to humanity can lead to a lot of personal unhappiness, homicidal ghouls like Kermit Gosnell, and the deployment of coercive state power in ways that threaten civil society and democracy.

You ignore actual scientific evidence, -------------------- Actually, SeaVik, the SCIENTIFIC evidence is that the Biblical Manuscript P72 that shows Peter's description of the divinity of Jesus flat out proves that it was not an invention of Constantine, since it was written as much as 150 years befscientific evidence, -------------------- Actually, SeaVik, the SCIENTIFIC evidence is that the Biblical Manuscript P72 that shows Peter's description of the divinity of Jesus flat out proves that it was not an invention of Constantine, since it was written as much as 150 years befSCIENTIFIC evidence is that the Biblical Manuscript P72 that shows Peter's description of the divinity of Jesus flat out proves that it was not an invention of Constantine, since it was written as much as 150 years before Nicea.

t's not so much an assault on Christianity as an adherence to historical facts and scientific facts and... well... just basically facts.

«Actually, SeaVik, the SCIENTIFIC evidence is that the Biblical Manuscript P72 that shows Peter's description of the divinity of Jesus flat out proves that it was not an invention of Constantine, since it was written as much as 150 years before Nicea.

Much of the research has now been transferred to Arizona, The Pontifical Academy of Sciences was established as a sign of the Church's commitment to scientific research.

Scientists don't so much persecute creationists as deem them irrelevent (the who concept of the scientific method contradicts creationism).

Peacocke finds a similarity of intention in religious and scientific cosmologies: «Both attempt to take into account as much of the «data» of the observed universe as possible and both use criteria of simplicity, comprehensiveness, elegance, and plausibility....

Much like the scientific method, one could look at religion as the codes, rules, rituals that may lead one to the subjective spiritual experiences.

Jeshua, if that were the case then religious authorities wouldn't spend so much time trying to control information, trying to pass off their beliefs as scientific, or attempting to misinform the public on genuine scientific explanations that happen to contradict those beliefs.

During the four weeks they try to develop in the seminar participants as much understanding as possible, based on scientific knowledge.

As a medical professional, one would think you'd understand that biological evolution, much like general relativity, quantum mechanics, the germ theory of disease, cell theory, plate tectonic theory, etc is a scientific theory and should be taught in science class based on the preponderance of evidence that backs it.

The scientist as much as anyone else is dependent on the tradition of the scientific community, on its especial authority, responsibility and methods of going about its scientific tasks.

For example, the canons of valid scientific knowledge are as much a matter of democratic concern as are the principles of representation in government.

Hawking's idea has not been tested much less accepted as a scientific theory.

But, to deny a scientific fact which has been supported by just as much evidence and data as gravity or the germ theory is plain ignorance.

you're appealing to scientific findings as a basis for compassion... and yet science can not even define LIFE... much less compassion.

Much of the time, theories will have to be adjusted and altered according to experiment and observation.BUT... Some of the time theory becomes fact... provable scientific fact, such as that we can use silicon and germanium in such a way that we can create electrical switches from these elements and we can use this to create computers.

A general review of the endnotes from Gunter's paper reveals a fair number of sources who will corroborate the claim that Bergson's scientific views are nor only not outdated, but go very» much to the heart of current scientific methods and insights, but particularly, see A. C. Papanicolaou and Pete A. N. Gunter, eds., Bergson in Modern Thought Towards a Unified Science (New York: Harwood Academic Publishers, 1987), and for important background on how Bergson came to be seen as dated when he was not, see also, Milic Capek, Bergson and Modern Physics, (cited above) and The Philosophical Impact of Contemporary Physics (Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand, 1961), and the volume edited by Gunter, Bergson and the Evolution of Physics (cited above).

For convenience the scientific method can be set out as four basic steps, although the degree to which they can be applied in this over-simple form depends very much on the field of study.

Third, scientific reflection (in the form of observation and much speculation) on the nature of time itself also has profound implications on how man conceives of his reality as a succession of events (how man connects events in his reality)- interpreted as the passage of time - and whether those events are intrinsically connected, and, if so, whether or not such a connection is changeable.

Since then, for a number of reasons (air and water pollution, health concerns ignored and in fact unknown by scientific medicine, ecological issues), this questioning of the omnicompetence of the scientific method to uncover the truth, and of the creative value of technological «progress,» has deepened and spread and now penetrates much further into the culture as a whole.

@Chick - a-dee, «I'm trying to ponder why we as a species have rejected knowledge acquired in forms other that literal and scientific — so much so that we ignore our intuition, instinct and mysticism.»

There is much scientific evidence supporting that homosexuality as inherent and not choice.

Such a denial or dismissal of this particular theory or «insight» is by no means to «undermine the credibility of the Church and the message she preaches» and to suggest as much is to substitute physical scientific «insight» for dogmatic truth.

The world in this formist argument is witnessed not so much in newspapers, scientific works, and eschatological vision as in literature and other symbolic structures.

So, in short, this «evidence» that proves Christianity isn't so much scientific evidence as it is idealistic / philosophical / rhetorical resonance that may or may not occur when an individual encounters the Christian idea of Jesus and the death / resurrection story.

The intelligible principles of finality — traces of the Mind of the Creator — discerned through a holistic analysis of the scientific data arejust as much a part of the substantial reality of the cosmos as the matter itself.

Vast numbers of people think that the fact of a relatively settled order of nature, along with the scientific interpretation of change and the description of the inner dynamics of human personality (and much else as well), has ruled out once and for all genuine novelty and made change nothing more than the reshuffling of bits of matter - in - motion.