Sentences with phrase «at pseudoscience»

However I'm laughing so hard at your pseudoscience here that my serotonin levels sure to increase today.

We laugh at the pseudoscience behind it, yet it seemed real to centuries of people.

Not exact matches

Best Analysis: Karl Giberson at The Huffington Post with «Why Evangelicals Are Fooled Into Accepting Pseudoscience» «The relentless assaults on the integrity of science by groups like the Discovery Institute have made it impossible for many people to understand the significance of a «scientific consensus.»

It's based on cherry picked evidence and wishful thinking, pseudoscience at it's finest.

The BHA opposes state funding of Steiner schools because of concerns about pseudoscience on the curriculum (including scepticism of evolution and vaccinations and support for homeopathy), homeopathy being given to pupils by the schools» «anthroposophical doctors», and the fact that a number of private and at least one state school has opted out of providing vaccinations.

The BHA has long - standing concerns about Steiner schools including pseudoscience on the curriculum (including scepticism of evolution and vaccinations and support for homeopathy), homeopathy being given to pupils by the schools» «anthroposophical doctors», and the fact that a number of private and at least one state school has opted out of providing vaccinations.

The danger of pseudoscience and quackery is very real, says Jeffrey I. Mechanick, an endocrinologist at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine who has written extensively about the use of dietary supplements in the treatment of diabetes and other metabolic diseases.

And it again, it brought home to me the way in which Martin Gardner was at the hub of a vast universe of brilliant, sparkling intellect — including people like Marvin Minsky [at] the M.I.T. artificial intelligence lab; and John Conway who at the time was in England and later came to Princeton and who invented so many deep and fascinating mathematical ideas, especially the Game of Life, to which Martin devoted several columns and which was an incredibly important thing in bringing new ideas to the world of computation and about the cellular automata; and Donald Knuth at Stanford, the great computer [scientist]; Perci Diaconis a statistician who is fascinated by paradoxes of probability and a great magician as well; and Ray Hyman, a psychologist who had a spent a great deal of his life debunking people such as [Uri Geller]; and James Randi, one of the great magicians of our era who also was one of the most important debunkers of pseudoscience in the world.

I call creationism «pseudoscience» not because its proponents are doing bad science — they are not doing science at all — but because they threaten science education in America, they breach the wall separating church and state, and they confuse the public about the nature of evolutionary theory and how science is conducted.

This was the message I heard at the Forensic Science Research Evaluation Workshop held May 26 — 27 at the AAAS headquarters in Washington, D.C. I spoke about pseudoscience but then listened in dismay at how the many fields in the forensic sciences that I assumed were reliable (DNA, fingerprints, and so on) in fact employ unreliable or untested techniques and show inconsistencies between evaluators of evidence.

Terence Hines, a professor of psychology at Pace University in New York and author of the book «Pseudoscience and the Paranormal» (Prometheus Books, 2003), told Live Science that the new study makes sense given the role of the vestibular system in the human body.

During college at the Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT) in New York, he started a club called RIT Skeptics, a discussion group centered around questions of science and pseudoscience.

In a blog post, David Gorski, a professor and surgeon at Wayne State University, called the paper «antivaccine pseudoscience.»

I don't spend much time on «pseudoscience» especially if it is making a profit for folks at the expense of other folks health.

You can call it pseudoscience if you like, but he is referencing (albeit at times misinterpreting, misrepresenting and overstating) the same pubmed journals everyone else is.

At least, if you're smart and educated, talk about prions, talk about economics, and other real threats of eating animal products, but, no, you choose to spread misinformation and pseudoscience!

Why is natural medicine labeled «pseudoscience» when it is has been used respectfully and successfully in Asia for at least 3000 years?

In addition to your comment being, at best, unhelpful, I'm curious about your suggestion that I'm «spewing pseudoscience.»

I've written a lot about dogs and dominance and my take on this topic hasn't changed at all, namely, dogs display dominance but dominance should not be used in training / teaching dogs to coexist with us or with other dogs [please see «Social Dominance is not a Myth,» «Dominance and Pseudoscience: Making Sense of Nonsense,» renowned primatologist Dr. Dario Maestripieri's outstanding essay called «Social Dominance Explained: Part I» (in which he mildly takes me to task for trying to accommodate the deniers), and many links therein.]

No organization has been more effective at working the anti-TNR pseudoscience into a message neatly packaged for the mainstream media, and eventual consumption by the general public.

No organization has been more effective at working the anti-trap-neuter-release pseudoscience into a message neatly packaged for the mainstream media, and eventual consumption by the general public.

That's kind of all you'll need to know — everything else is a mixture of predictable twists and some nonsense pseudoscience that's clearly aiming at Kojima's famous style but falling far short.

From its increased significance at the height of European colonialism to the foundations of Enlightenment - era pseudoscience, the concept of race has been used to categorize humans along the lines of shared characteristics in order to understand human difference.

He also blogs at The Guardian, and is the author of Climatology versus Pseudoscience.

-- At worst one could say it was an error of omission, and those errors are the feedstock for the half - truths that pseudoscience breeds on.

These scientists had congressional hearings directed at them and their work, they had politicos interfering in their reports, they had PR people working for corporations smearing them and their work, they received threats and faced pseudoscience masquerading as science trying to create the perception of significant dissent when it was really only minor.

That was the conventional wisdom among skeptics at the time (quote from Demon Haunted World, published in 1997)-- that the problem of pseudoscience or science - denial was essentially one of information deficit.

- Go off into fervent belief in pseudoscience - Are sure they know more than top - notch scientists who spend their lives doing this, although they themselves do not - Pontificate in OpEds, letters to editors, white papers, websites, E&E... but not peer - reviewed science journals - but have reasonable technical backgrounds - and so should be able to study and learn the science - and ought to know better - and isn't one of those scientists at end of career going off the rails into a field outside their own - and in this case, a reference to Stanford EE degree

Ok so you have at least worked out the atmosphere does something a fact some of the other pseudoscience lunatics haven't so now follow the science properly you cant say it just cools because that is true only of the side facing the sun it is heating the reverse side to stop it going massively negative so your logic breaks down.

For the most part, I don't think a lot of people (or at least those that matter) take people like «kim» seriously, yet even pseudoscience gives the illusion of debate (Monckton's latest artwork on climate sensitivity being an example)

Like other alarmists in the climate debate, Brown is satisfied with repeating the sound bites and self - serving pseudoscience of those at the extreme end of the scientific debate, and dismisses the extensive research that contradicts that view.

I've sent this to anyone I think is in a position to cover it (the last being to James Randi at the JREF, a prominent critic of pseudoscience and no mug when it comes to eliminating deliberate or inadvertant bias).

Or you might look at misbehavior which is all too common in ordinary pseudoscience disputes, but which in the physical and biological sciences is very uncommon on the funded academic side: e.g., triumphalism about unfalsifiable claims, and circling the wagons around various kinds of data hiding (e.g., remarkably lackadaisical formal investigation of CRU even after FOIA violations, and broad enthusiasm for promoting the formal results into an informal full «nothing to see here, move along» exoneration).