Sentences with phrase «do normal science»

We just wanted to get answers, do normal science and be skeptical of the AGW claims.

Consensus as a relative concept, Thomas Kuhn's «the way scientists do normal science,» the de jour «camp paradigm.»

Not exact matches

@blip - It's not the normal way to think about voting, but there is a minority in political science who do research on how the economy influences voting (under the premise that voters are rational).

Normal mice watching chronically itchy mice in other cages increased their own scratching in as little as 5 seconds, whereas mice placed near nonitchy mice didn't show any increase in scratching, researchers report in Science.

Chen and colleagues report online today in Science that mice without GRPR neurons scratched significantly less than normal mice did — about 80 % less in each case.

The mutant flies died much more rapidly than did normal flies, the team reports 24 March in Science, evidence that the RNAi mechanism is at least one of the fly's defenses against viruses.

Although muscle cells did not reduce in size or number in mice lacking a protective antioxidant protein, they were weaker than normal muscle cells, researchers from the Barshop Institute for Longevity and Aging Studies at The University of Texas Health Science Center San Antonio found.

The cells with the normal gene grew significantly longer dendrites — the portions of the cell that reach out to receive nerve impulses — than did neurons with the mutated gene, the team reports 14 October in Science.

Medical Science does not know what a normal range of testosterone is for women

Like any two «normal» guys after a long day, all we could talk about was science, and on this particular night the topic du jour was NAFLD (non-alcoholic fatty liver disease for the non-cognoscenti).

In actuality, GMOs help to feed people in places where normal crops don't grow as well, in addition to the various other benefits provided by genetically modified plants (if you are interested, I can provide several links to science based reports and such that provide further details).

Unfortunately, science does not have the full answer; however, we do know that, for men who are not suffering from clinically low testosterone, there are some measures you can take that may result in more stable levels, possibly alleviating the mild symptoms of low testosterone that you may be experiencing when your levels dip below normal.

Interestingly, it is believed that testosterone levels do fluctuate from day to day (that is, throughout the month) in addition to the normal daily fluctuation, though the science behind this is new and not nearly as well established as the research behind women's monthly and yearly hormone fluctuations.

At Hollin Meadows Science and Math Focus School the interim testing is done within the normal class period and is designed to be part of the regular teaching and learning cycle, said principal Jon Gates.

After taking him for normal vaccinations, the vet highly recommended science diet large breed puppy so I switched and didn't think to research or question anything.

The next day, I started to give him the science diet puppy food again, he would not touch it, he didn't eat anything for the next 2 weeks, had to force feed him baby formula, Pedia light, blended up chicken and rice... I have seen 2 vets and a specialist and everything was tested normal, blood work normal, liver back to normal - I'm guessing bc of the meds, he has had all vaccinations and on regular heartgard and nexgard... no one could figure out the reason, they wanted me to spend 2000 on surgery to search for blockage that didn't show up on xrays, I did not have the Money to do so, have been doing all I can at home to help him get through this.

Please take a note that I do perfectly understand what a feedback is (in the normal science and engineering), and how to write and analyze / solve differential equations, both ordinary and partial.

-- Of course, we all must realize that absent something we don't all know about (or the methane shock troops being right, which the science does not appear to support; while faintly agreeing that increased methane can't be good it appears the more knowledgeable sorts are saying the quantities are out of whack for going all shock - horror on it just yet, while other problems multiply and are bad enough without giving ourselves nightmares), the weather is going to return to something more like normal in the next couple of years.

While normal science is: «let's see what we know», post-normal science is: «let's do what needs to be done, no matter what the science is».

Indeed Vaughan, you are doing what I call AGW science, or in Kuhnian terms normal science based on assuming the AGW paradigm.

I contend however, that a careful reading of the above passage reveals that the «extended peer community» gets its say after «normal science» has done its work, in assessing science inputs into policy processes.

Neilio, I'm with you on this.I just love the way you stand up to that guy's strange arguments.I too am extremely concerned at the way we are all being made to follow this crazy «science», to the detriment of most normal Humans» lives.I'm in England.We are living on a huge mass of fossil fuel, (coal, oil and now gas from Fracking), and we're being told that we must not use it to keep warm.Coal - fired power plants are being shut down.Useless windfarms are swamping our country.Nuclear stations are planned when Germany has banned them in favour of Coal.China and India are building and using more coal stations than we ever did.

This is the «post normal scientific method» (see Hulme, 2007), and it is a far superior method of inquiry as compared to that stodgy old «normal» scientific method that sometimes just does nt work well enough to justify us taking what we want in the name of science.

As usual, it seems as if there is no simple answer, and the more work is done, the more surprises occur (i.e., the normal course of science).

In fact, they go on to explain that regular old «normal» science that we regular old «normal scientists» do is fine for other circumstances, when facts are not uncertain, or values are not in dispute, etc, etc..

Michael, I don't care if you wish for the science to progress in the normal way.

And it has led to a lot of «fighting» of the issue on the science which has fed into itself with all sorts of things that have nothing to do with the basic issue, or that constitute the normal ongoing process of scientific examination, questioning, correction, mistake, or that misrepresent or misconstrue some of the relevant science, and even data, as well as the issue itself.

That is simply normal science: until a theory has been clearly and decisively tested, responsible scientists do not claim definitive results.

If Jones was doing science by any normal definition this information would have been availoable to the public at the time of the original publication and we wouldn't be having this discussion at all.

'' Deletion of outlier data is a controversial practice frowned on by many scientists and science instructors; while mathematical criteria provide an objective and quantitative method for data rejection, they do not make the practice more scientifically or methodologically sound, especially in small sets or where a normal distribution can not be assumed.»

There are tons of real studies done by real science folk in the normal peer reviewed channels to check.

The tragedy is, that if you really do have evidence of AGW, this will forever be doubted if you can't apply the normal rules of science to weed out past mistakes — even if they did show a trend that you think is valid!

The work performed by Anthony, with limited resources should have been performed by the «public servants» themselves, who are funded by vast taxpayer resources, and do not appear to have been performing anything resembling «normal» science.

Another 860 more have said they will do so in the next two years, demonstrating the science - based targets are now the new normal for business.

In they days before» post normal science» when hypothesese were falsified or not with real empirical data it was expected that if one wanted to determine a change in some factor — for example response in corn yields to different rates of types of fertilsier the test was done on the same soil type in the same years.

AFAIK the primary reason practitioners of «normal» science don't question the fundamental assumptions of the paradigm is efficiency: if you don't take some things for granted, you'll never get anything done.

Everything they've done is contrary to normal scientific practices, yet it is presented to the public as solid science.

And anyone saying «well we don't have enough science yet on these specifics» is throwing up a phurphy and not addressing the genuine links that are there in this winter time nth hemisphere that something is way beyond «normal».

Well, it's odd, because the «true» definition seems to have to do with policy making when scientific uncertainty doesn't quite light the way, «normal science» moves too slowly reduce uncertainty significantly, and the potential downside is severe and something must be done.

Furthermore, from what I have read of him, it doesn't seem to me that his understanding of Kuhn (the «normal» in «post-normal» science) is particularly deep.

To which I offered to refrain from using such descriptors for as long as others would refrain from using other specified descriptors to describe climate science and normal people who didn't reject climate science:

Where science does get involved, Sylvia T of Post Normal Times, who is very knowledgable about PNS, specifically mentioned «applied sciences» over at Policy Lass (Ronin Geographer).

In contrast to the 2007 paper, Oliver Phillips, myself, and others, published a paper in Science last year, using ground observations from across the Amazon, showing that while the 2005 drought did not dramatically change the growth of the trees compared to a normal year, as Samanta et al. also show, the deaths of trees did increase considerably.

Ultimately, this whole palaver — is all about politics and nothing whatsoever to do with pure science, the futility of arguing the toss with post normal modernists is an circumambagious wander into a pointless and endless disputation.

It's fascinating: I may just have to do some research into the underlying science, because this kind of process is outside of our «normal» way of thinking... But something that sequesters carbon AND is good for soil - seems you can't go wrong!

For those who have woken up angry at their spouse for an injustice done in a dream, science suggests it's actually normal to want an apology.

This article carefully treads around key questions that are unfortunately neglected far too often by human science publications: how did the assumption that it's normal for heterosexual men to gaze at (what they perceive as) women's bodies come to be, and how does this normalization intersect with cultural practices and knowledges that make rape seem inevitable?