Sentences with phrase «by valid science»

If all one is interested in is perusing a range of points of view, whether backed up by valid science or not, it's a reasonable source.

Not exact matches

This tells me that, there is no valid scientific explanation for the creation of the world because it wasn't created by science, but by the creator — God, the Alpha & the Omega.

Taken as a whole they've made a very compelling argument that the explanations of the universe provided by both science and religion are incomplete and always evolving, and that one perspective is no more or less valid than another.

So much is this true that the total separation of faith and religion from life and culture became a cardinal principle of a new outlook, now called The Philosophy of Science, the doctrine of which is that nothing is valid in society, in community law, or in educational principle, unless it belongs to the experimental order and can be proven by the senses.

This great psychological / science community can never and has never conducted a valid study to show how one chooses to act on their orientation is not impacted by their environment.

Another GOP wannabe pandering to the far right by supporting the concept that science not not be believed or accepted unless it conforms with your personal beliefs, and that all belief - based views of science are equally valid.

Another GOP star pandering to the far right by supporting the concept that science need not be believed or accepted unless it conforms with your personal beliefs, and that all belief - based views of science are equally valid.

I follow the science being done at CERN and am fascinated at how many theories are being proven valid, not to mention the amazing discoveries by the NASA Space Program.

For many years, there have been claims that the forensic sciences are neither valid nor reliable and may not meet the admissibility standards established by the U.S. Supreme Court in its 1993 Daubert ruling.

Porter, noting that many had been «shocked» by the news, asked if it was «valid science.»

If you're making a valid claim that is actually supported by science then you shouldn't have any need to be this deceptive.

Explain the importance of networking science in communication purpose across the globe by supporting with valid arguments.

I think these are valid opinions, but they are not science, nor are they supported by science.

He references this AMEG nonsense, presents it as valid science (although it is the furthest thing from), grossly exaggerates articles to make a point, and claims utter nonsense (6 °C by 2050, more than 100 % more than any credible institution predicts under any scenario) and never backs up his claims with numbers (especially his feedbacks, apart from the AMEG / methane stuff).

By adroitly combining valid information with culturally affirming meanings, these communications succeed in getting people to reflectively assess evidence that they might otherwise dismiss out of hand (btw, if your goal is not simply to get people to open - mindedly consider evidence using their own powers of reason — if you just want to make them believe something, who cares how — you are not a science communicator; you are a propagandist).

You are claiming the science isn't valid because: «Regarding peer reviewed scientific journals, these are edited (that is, controlled) by and written by academics, the overwhelming majority of whom are left wingers.

And by their qualification for conspiracies, these authors imply that they take whatever claims to be science as true and valid.

Right, appeal to authority, I made it and stand by it, and until they take Max Planck's Nobel Prize away from him as well as a dozen or so given to the developers of Quantum Mechanics, then you will have to consider the science I was referencing as valid.

Under the scientific method, for example, the so - called «consensus» so strongly advocated by the Climate - Industrial Complex (CIC) should have absolutely no role in determining science — only results derived by using the scientific method, the basis for evaluating what is and is not valid science.

You had made a perfectly valid point that guilt by association is not science and has no place in this debate and then you expose yourself as nothing more than a cheerleader for a violent cause... Because the violence supports your belief....

In the «Linear Model» of interfacing science and policy, science informs policy by producing objective, valid, and reliable knowledge.

In this regard, with the wisdom that historical hindsight affords, everyone on Climate Etc can appreciate the wisely conservative governance of Ronald Wilson Reagan, in ratifying the Montreal Accords, as guided by the «inconvenient truths» of atmospheric science — truths that none - the-less are verifiably valid (V&V)!

The Wallace et al. 2016 study represents a new and interesting approach to climate science research which should yield very interesting and much more valid results since the weight given to each likely variable is determined by available evidence rather than the guesses of carefully selected «experts» and incorporated into their largely arbitrary computer models.

So in Chapter 3, drawing on standard social science content analysis procedures and the measures used by Boykoff, I provide the first reliable and valid data evaluating systematic patterns in mainstream coverage of the reality and causes of climate change for the key political period of 2009 and 2010.

The entire effort to attempt «sounding scientific» by discussion of the «hockey stick» is no more different than those café conversations of «dark matter», and present no more SCIENCE or valid «statistical philosophy».

How does past research by Max Boykoff offer us a valid and reliable picture of trends relative to false balance in coverage of climate science?

They suggest that the Senate Minority Report criticized by the Credibility Project is just as valid as The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Physical Science Report - 2007, and one of them notes, correctly, that the full subtitle of this IPCC report is «The Physical Science Basis.»

«Climate science ™» in the main avoids being scientifically valid by using only a theory that is in the main not falsifiable.

Science could have been done, instead of swamping us with ideological dogma unsupported by valid evidence.

It tells us how low they are prepared to stoop in their petulant desperation to slur the opposition, by tacitly equating sensible and valid doubts about the robustness of current climate science groupthink with the far less intellectually tenable position of denying the existence of the Holocaust.

Without valid, rational justification, it's being driven by ideological belief, not not rational policy analysis based on valid relevant science.

There is plenty of evidence to suggest that science has not yet enlightened (if it ever can) anyone enough to reject valid questions out of hand and declare them resolved by the priest class, just trust them, it has been resolved.

That leaves many science educators free to include climate change in courses however they want — by, for instance, teaching the scientific consensus on climate change, or explicitly advocating skepticism as a valid scientific proposition as Heartland does.

On the one hand, he says that any reasonable person should've been skeptical two years ago due to valid points raised by skeptics (despite these points having been dealt with by mainstream climate science for * years *).

I think everything I said was «scientifically sound» and supported by valid climate science consensus.

Yes if the pope calculated it via (Absorptivity = 1 — Reflectivity) he would be doing valid science, as supported by every link provided.

After this searching and careful review of ID as espoused by its proponents, as elaborated upon in submissions to the Court, and as scrutinized over a six week trial, we find that ID is not science and can not be adjudged a valid, accepted scientific theory as it has failed to publish in peer - reviewed journals, engage in research and testing, and gain acceptance in the scientific community.