Sentences with phrase «better than scientific»

However, the GCMs remain no better than scientific hypotheses until they are validated.

And because as far as dogs and cats are concerned, handmade recipes taste way, way better than scientific formulas.

Merrick believes whole foods not only taste better, but are better for your pet, and handmade recipes are much better than scientific formulas.

Not exact matches

But to every rule there is an exception, and glad I was to be called out (and called up) by the founder and CEO of one mobile - health company whose entire premise is based on scientific research with repeatable results — the exact study, in fact, I had used as my example of what works better than a health app.

A better policy focus on those areas has a better chance to dramatically alter poverty than the new math being peddled as scientific fact.

Other than the experimental - discipline aspect of his scientific studies, he really charted an unrelated course, because he stumbled upon a good opportunity.

They work to secure media attention for their own work as well as for plant - based and cultured meat companies, and they have been covered in more than 480 scientific and mainstream media venues.16 Little is known about the impact of these interventions on public opinion, though it seems that raising public awareness of cultured products may be valuable, especially since the field is so new.

But when you do a political rather than an economic or scientific calculus on that, it doesn't look very good.

John Oh, I can imagine a better being than Christian God: one that wouldn't rely on a flawed ancient book riddled with scientific inaccuracies and contradictions to «reveal» himself.

What you have done in logic and scientific terms is, we do not know, science does not know, so let's make something up (the supernatural) and we'll use that since a made up reason is better than no answer.

How better to solve the questions and problems we face than to combine scientific inquiry with the ability to petition the creator of the universe?

For too many people, it's simply better to just deny scientific fact and play ignorant than address logically some serious questions regarding the validity of human scientific achievement.

In truth Intelligent Design is really nothing more than a Relgious Belief given the cloak of Science, but from a Scientific perspective it is only a Hypothosis at best.

@ total non sense Perhaps we're splitting hairs here, but I was trying to be kind by implying that rather than treating religiosity as a mental disability, for which the supposedly clinically sick can receive insurance benefits and evade personal actionable responsibility by claiming illness, it would be better to treat religiosity as a societal functional disorder which can be addressed through better education and a perceptional shift towards accepting scientific explanations for how the world works rather than relying on literal interpretations of ancient bronze age mythologies and their many derivations since.

Bad as the actions of the APS were, they were far better than those of most other scientific societies, which refused to even reconsider extreme statements on climate.

On the contrary, the concept that the universe is the product of a rational mind provides a far better metaphysical basis for scientific rationality than the competing concept that everything in the universe (including our minds) is ultimately based in the mindless movements of matter.

This objection is, for the lack of a better name, nothing more than «egg mysticism»: the belief that eggs are somehow so potently driven to create zygotes that no scientific manipulation will prove capable of deflecting the egg from its preordained path.

Any good story is far more powerful to change lives and direct history than the most provable scientific or theological fact.

While it is impossible in a scientific age to consider any literal acceptance of the doctrine of resurrection, it does point even better than the doctrine of immortality to some of the fundamentals of religious experience mentioned above.

It is arguably the best supported scientific theory of all time, much better understood than things like gravity.

Again, proof and evidence guided by the scientific method or a preponderance of evidence weighed objectively seems to work better than taking as «proof» anecdotal testimony.

While it maybe be true that large pools of institutional money are better at buying political favors, influencing scientific research, and swaying foreign governments, it has always been known and is frequently demonstrated that individuals always do better at loving and caring for other individuals, tend to be wiser stewards of money, and view their giving and service toward others as a means of actually helping them, rather than a means to gain political power or popular prestige.

Assertions that heterosexual couples are inherently better parents than same sex couples, or that the children of lesbian or gay parents fare worse than children of heterosexual parents, have no support in the scientific research literature.

Dr. Wickman should know better than to make unsubstantiated assumptions, exercise poor logic, and worst of all, make statements about scientific fields she is not educated in.

Scientific theories that have been shown to be «wrong» in the past were at best only shown to be partially wrong, and more often than not the wrong parts were forced upon scientists by religion and the church.

Since this country has both been largely Christian and the leader in scientific discovery for more than 250 years, it seems the evidence proves that being a Christian nation has made us better off scientifically than other countries without our core values.

Doc, I like your approach of contrasting dogma and the scientific method better than my approach of limiting the issue to the literal interpretation of texts.

Medieval art as well dealt in symbols in an era when artists were more concerned with the world of Christian faith than with the world of scientific observation.

Demanding strictly scientific precision to guarantee Scripture's trustworthiness, requiring something more objective than the internal, personal witness of the Holy Spirit through the text itself, scholars like Lindsell end up testing the truth of the Bible by an extra-Biblical standard.32 As with Davis, externally derived «good reasons» become the ultimate criterion for judging the gospel.

It would be unfaithful to both the best in the world of scientific learning and the wisest kind of religious leadership to offer more than these broad clear strokes in the portrayal of what it means in our day to undertake the work of a scientist as a Christian calling.

Mr. Futterman's reference to quantum computers solving problems by a «leap of intuition» is therefore less a matter of sober scientific assessment than rhapsodic misdirection by a scientist who should know better.

Your children and grandchildren should have a better education than you were able to get — simply because science has discovered more things in every scientific field.

I rather have a placebo with no side effects than your best crafted chemically produced scientific cure that gives me a thousand other symptoms in the long run.

Facts like the snows that have covered Mount Kilimanjaro for thousands of years are melting Scientific proof may not be as «warm and fuzzy» feeling as political rhetoric is, but it's better to base our beliefs and actions on objective reality than on self - serving political dogma.

Dawkins was also well known by the public as a great scientist, though his true talent was in communicating scientific ideas in books such as The Selfish Gene (Oxford University Press) rather than in his actual research.

Von Däniken's thesis is this: the postulate that the earth was once visited by spacemen from another world serves better to account for ancient artifacts than do the scientific theories now accepted (p. 51).

The Christian doctrine of the triunitarian nature of God, to which we shall come in the latter part of this chapter, is a symbolic account that gives a better ultimate explanation of what the whole story is about than does some account true (so far as it goes) which is given in scientific (or similar) terms alone.

Rather we are well reminded that the Judaeo - Christian God is the immediate sustainer of all, and that to give a scientific explanation is more evidence for the Creator than against him.

We can dream of a perfectly balanced society, where the difference between individual initiative and solidarity are reduced to a simple state of tension, where human beings are judged because of what they are rather than the added - value they produce, where cultures are considered to be equally valid expressions of being and where scientific and technical progress is oriented towards the well - being of all rather than the enrichment of a few.

Previously, we learned that Moses did not intend to write a scientific explanation of how the sun, moon, and stars came into existence, but instead wanted the Hebrew people to understand how Yahweh was different and better than the gods of Canaan, Egypt, and Babylon, with which the Hebrew people were familiar.

The editorial urged Professor Langley to use his scientific talents for better purposes than trying to fly.

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.

They simply can not see that their answer, rather than being a better alternative to the complicated scientific one, is actually far more convoluted.

True, Henry... but fostering a culture that embraces, rather than runs and hides from, scientific methodologies and critical thinking will serve us much better.

Assertions that heterose xual couples are inherently better parents than same se x couples, or that the children of lesbian or gay parents fare worse than children of heterose xual parents, have no support in the scientific research literature.

Some nations were better poised than others to take advantage of innovation — England in particular, because it had a relatively open society with more scope for entrepreneurship; strong institutions of political liberty; a commitment to the scientific method exemplified by Newton; lots of seaports and colonies; a relative isolation that reduced the risk of invasion; and lots and lots of coal.

Yes, evolutionary biology has some holes but it is a solidly grounded scientific discipline whose principles and postulates have been proven without any doubt (btw, there are much better examples than the Vitamin C one).

We have to find our own purposes in life, which are not derived directly from our scientific history... As atheists... we face up to the fact that... we must make the most of our short time on this planet and... make this planet as good as we possibly can and try to leave it a better place than we found it».

A scientist should know better than to deal in this kind of absolute, without using the scientific methods.

And do they think that believing that an invisible magic man (who will torture you if you don't believe in him) is really better answer to universe origins than their caricature of scientific conjecture on the subject.