RE «Flannery is quite critical of the IPCC process, describing it as «lowest
common denominator science» and claiming that it must be assumed that things are likely to be worse than are described in those reports.»
Flannery is quite critical of the IPCC process, describing it as «lowest
common denominator science» and claiming that it must be assumed that things are likely to be worse than are described in those reports.
Not exact matches
Induction has been accused of many shortcomings, but the
common denominator of the various criticisms leveled against it, from Popper to Kuhn to Feyerabend, is that belief in induction is responsible for a naive empiricism which views
science as based on uninterpreted observation and direct verification of theories by the «facts.»
World - class
science is another
common denominator and indeed there is already significant co-operation, and numerous exchange programmes, between the two countries.
In
science's search for the essential and the lowest
common denominator, there were the significant late 18thC advances in optics and color theory.
Try to find a least
common denominator on the
science, rather than trying to convince people the physics is arguable.
I do agree that his description of the IPCC process as «least -
common -
denominator»
science is wholly unwarranted.
The latter sees
science reduced to the lowest
common denominator for the purpose of extrinsic social - engineering ambitions it would seem.
In each of these examples, the
common denominator is relationships of love and connection — and now, groundbreaking
science is shedding more light on the neurobiology of love and connection as they relate to recovery.