Sentences with phrase «best scientific arguments»

AGW doubters had better scientific arguments than AGW believers, but Senator Booker (D, MA) was surprisingly effective in his support of AGW believers.

Not exact matches

While I am not religious (I will call myself agnostic), and having an IQ well over genius levels, with scientific and mathematical tendencies, let me ask you a few questions, because what I see here are a bunch of people talking about «no evidence» or «proof» of God's existence, therefore He can't possibly exist, existential arguments, which are not arguments, but fearful, clouded alterations of a truth that can not be seen.

The big bang does not state that something comes from nothing, and the rest of your argument is ludicrous.This is why Bill Nye is right - a lack of scientific understanding results in a nation full of ignorance and lack of critical thinking; not good for a nation that is basically making money by being on the cutting edge of technology.

While well - acquainted with the tradition of philosophical reflection on the soul and its relationship to the body, Fr Selman's knowledge of recent scientific research relevant to his subject appears less impressive and his terminology, and even some of his ideas and arguments, can therefore appear outdated or irrelevant.

But while these arguments might well suffice to establish psychicalism as a speculative scientific cosmology, and thus to show that «psychics,» not «physics,» is the inclusive empirical science, they remain merely empirical arguments and as such are insufficient to establish psychicalism as a metaphysical position (1977).

Still ID stands in good position despite the scientific method argument; when all the evidence is on the table and all the excuses put aside ID is very possible.

Finally, the fact that I treat with respect an idea that has much in its favor, that is believed by the great majority of scientists, that has no decisive arguments against it, and that may well turn out to be true — I am speaking here of the scientific theory called neo-Darwinism — is not «appeasement» but intellectual humility and honesty.

The scientific method isn't an argument against «fine tuning» which is the foundation for ID; the argument to «fine tuning» is M - Theory — essentially stating our Universe isn't anything special, we just happened to evolve in the best suited Universe out of the infinite possible Universes, thus no cosmological need for God.

Even though these arguments are portrayed as absolute, scientific fact, these arguments are better understood as a rhetorical strategy to persuade mothers of the health threats to their children (c.f., Best's (1990) work on the construction of the child - victim).

The US letter says: «We have not seen a compelling scientific, legal or economic argument for changing the current regulatory regime...» Well, there are plenty scientific, legal and economic arguments warranting the extension of the ban on advertising to 24 months.

«Howarth raises the legitimate argument that aircraft studies represent snapshots in time and space,» but his conclusion that satellite data from a single study is the best data that exists does not represent current scientific consensus, Schwietzke said.

while your arguments are well worth the read, you completely miss the point by failing to acknowledge that the article talks about a scientific recommendation partially inspired by historical facts and sustainable agriculture together with modern knowledge about what comprises a healthy diet.

But despite the book's black - and - white declarations about animal products — and its seemingly well - referenced arguments — The China Study is not a work of scientific vigor.

To give you a taste of what is coming in Part 2, the arguments can be summarized as: 1) Education does not lend itself to a single «best» approach, so the Gates effort to use science to discover best practices is unable to yield much productive fruit; 2) As a result, the Gates folks have mostly been falsely invoking science to advance practices and policies they prefer for which they have no scientific support; 3) Attempting to impose particular practices on the nation's education system is generating more political resistance than even the Gates Foundation can overcome, despite their focus on political influence and their devotion of significant resources to that effort; 4) The scale of the political effort required by the Gates strategy of imposing «best» practices is forcing Gates to expand its staffing to levels where it is being paralyzed by its own administrative bloat; and 5) The false invocation of science as a political tool to advance policies and practices not actually supported by scientific evidence is producing intellectual corruption among the staff and researchers associated with Gates, which will undermine their long - term credibility and influence.

I've thoroughly reviewed Blackwell's study and several accompanying papers, have taken an extensive look at all claimed negative consequences of dog shock collars and whether there's some good scientific evidence on the pros of using dog training collars aside from the arguments made by author Steven R Lindsay.

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.

Basing one's opinion of the credibility of a scientific argument on public debate is naive at best and downright dangerous at worst.

Regarding whether those ignorant in statistics can understand Hansen's latest papers, I'm a perfect test case: My knowledge of stats is low (if I had ever heard the term «sigma» before, I don't recall it), and only have a basic humanities major's ability to grasp scientific arguments (well, maybe a little better since I work with scientists as expert witnesses).

No matter how much you try, you will always be susceptible to specific scientific arguments contradicting well - established findings.

> Okey doke; let's agree that windpower is a good thing, generally, that it's desirable that engineering solutions be sought to (further) minimize and certainly monitor the effect on bird life — especially raptors — and that the «cats kill more birds than wind turbines» argument isn't a stellar example of a well - reasoned scientific argument addressing a legit scientific concern.

The e-mails, attributed to prominent American and British climate researchers, include discussions of scientific data and whether it should be released, exchanges about how best to combat the arguments of skeptics, and casual comments — in some cases derisive — about specific people known for their skeptical views.

It should be abandoned in favor of a more traditional review that presents arguments for and against — which would better support scientific progress, and be more useful for policy makers.»

This is a contrarian group that is re-hashing old arguments and not using the state - of - the - art scientific literature in good faith to come up with a coherent analysis that counters the scientific findings synthesized in the IPCC assessment reports, which ARE by leading experts.

Playing semantical games with the argument makes for good theater and a way for intellectuals to flex their egos but in the real world the scientific community has already reached a consensus which is beneficial to their interest and they are riding it to the bitter end.

So, since it is so important for the diversity of scientific thought (as well as the cold hard scrutiny of all ostensibly scientific thought — but despite the clamor for diversity and challenge, this leading site, for laying out the myriad errors of climate change skepticism arguments, is nevertheless, among many other similar ones, decried, denigrated, and dismissed as unworthy and worse)-- what, exactly, is the «contrarian» position?

Since as a scientific illiterate I can't very well sort my way through competing scientific arguments, I have to go at this issue in a more indirect way.

In terms of the content of this article, describing the scientific argument in the documentary as being unfairly one - sided as you have done would imply that there is a body of scientific opinion as weighty and well - formed (and peer - reviewed) that contradicts the AGW hypothesis.

I don't see that Crichton's argument is any better — it uses the precise same tactic of arguing from the fundamental uncertainty of the scientific enterprise to try to undermine results that Crichton doesn't like.

In doing so, the best he can offer from moral philosophy is a reduction of complicated scientific, political, and economic arguments to facile comparisons of «business as usual» to «standing around, watching a child drown».

Surely the integrity of scientific research is founded upon truthful reporting of data and methods sufficient to make replication of all or any portion of said data or methods practicable; understandable and well organized arguments relevant to said data and methods sufficient to make meaningful discussion practicable, and accessible avenues of reputable publication of the foregoing sufficient to make interested dialogue practicable.

Argument from authority is a good rule of thumb principle for a mature scientific research field with solid empirical backing and testable and verified hypothesis.

True scepticism is more than just about discrediting one line of scientific argument, it is about promoting a better one.

If we look back over the film, we can see exactly the same argument being made here, as were made by Naomi Oreskes in her «Tobacco Strategy» thesis: there were a small bunch who viciously and nastily attacked a bunch of nice scientists, and who cast doubt over well established scientific truths in order to control the media, and influence the public.

This is a good example of how to completely mess up what might have been a constructive scientific argument.

I think Michael Criton has made the best argument and comparison to commonly accepted «truths» of the scientific community, that were later found to be incorrect; most recently the stomach ulcer causes actually discovered against the entire gastroenterological medical community.

Well apart from illustrating shortfalls in openess and transparency & personal conduct from individuals, this only adds to the reasons why most recent reports from scientific societies on climate change (Royal Society, French Academy of Sciences...) no longer take into account arguments from long term climate reconstructions.

Wally says: «So, going back, the fact that you can't differentiate good skeptical stand points or arguments from those pushing a religous belief as science, shows you're quite ignorant of the scientific process, and the differences between conjecture, hypothesis, theory and blind blief.»

Personally, I think that we could do a lot better job of teaching elements of the scientific method to the public, and that explicitly rejecting uses of Argument from Authority would be a good step to take in that direction.

Seems to me that you can't even formulate your own arguments, all you can do is copy / paste from well known, self proclaimed, pseudo scientific political websites.

If we expect the climate extremists to be truthful, we ought to do our best to be truthful ourselves, and not to push the scientific argument beyond what measurement and experiment and the application of established theory to the results has plainly and sufficiently demonstrated.

Monbiot has no faith in humans, finds no moral good in the service of human interests, and has faith in scientific institutions only to the extent that they serve his own argument.

Good one, I hope any normal person that stumbles upon this blog can recognize the level of nonsense arguments presented here that «appear» to be based on scientific discoveries, but really aren't.

It is indeed a good «top of the issue tree» rendition of some of the basic scientific arguments, so we don't disagree.

It is a good old scientific argument — the the comments on AR4 from Annan linked above, he rips»em a new one!

I think «unholy alliance» captures what you are trying to say just as well, without allowing the specious inference that you are making a scientific argument.

Most skeptics are well aware that climate catastrophists themselves have strong financial incentives to continue to declare the sky is falling, but we don't rely on this fact as 100 % or even 10 % of our «scientific» argument.

Accomplishing this will require synthesizing multiple lines of scientific evidence, including simple and complex models, physical arguments, and paleoclimate data, as well as new modeling experiments to better explore the possibility of extreme scenarios.

(If the greens had really won the argument, why would they not try to give the institutions that have been created in its name the legitimacy of a popular mandate, as well as blessing it with scientific authority?)

I've been suggesting to my leftist friends that the alarmist line is losing the scientific argument and they'd do well to distance themselves lest their politics be taken down with the whole AGW story.

If you value science it is wise not to brush aside broadly accepted scientific insights too easily, lest you have very good arguments for doing so («extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence»).