Sentences with phrase «established sciences went»

Age - old methods of education and the cultivation of established sciences went on as before because of the large endowments which learned scholars had received at the hands of the Mughal emperors.

Not exact matches

The letter urges five overall guiding principles and 10 best practices in order to get more women into the field generally and leadership positions, including: getting executives and boards to make gender diversity a priority; establishing mentorship programs that connect women with life sciences executives; and doing a better job tracking where female talent goes within biopharma firms, among other suggestions.

«I decided to go to medical school, and then to work as a researcher within a university setting, to establish scientific credibility for this amazing work, which at the time, virtually nobody in academic medicine or science believed.»

So tell us about the resource page that the National Center for Science Education has established for people to go to get information about the claims made in the film.

The MCFA network establishes bridges across frontiers, cultures, and disciplines to go one step further in the exchange of knowledge and a better integration of science and society, and it welcomes opportunities to share its ideas and initiatives with the rest of the scientific community.

The movie goes to great lengths to establish its science - fiction setting.

Although the film takes an awfully long time to get going, The Black Hole eventually establishes itself as an engaging (albeit distinctly uneven) piece of science fiction.

' [Then I was fortunate in] 2013 to actually go and visit Paulo Blikstein [Assistant Professor of Education and, by courtesy, of Computer Science] at Stanford and spent time looking at the FabLab... and really felt that this was something that we could establish very successfully here at Lauriston.

I conjecture that three changes in the way in which the climate problem is presented by the experts to the general public would make the conversation go better: acknowledge that climate constraints are unwelcome (thereby establishing empathy with general audiences, as a doctor does when conveying bad news), present the science as unfinished (thereby taking away the surprise factor that accompanies every new wrinkle — cf. the cosmic ray stories of a couple of weeks ago), and admit that no solution is wonderful (something hard for much of our community, which loves some strategy and hates at least one of the others).

And I'd have to say that if I have to save my life by winning an argument with oil men in a bar in Midland, Tex., on this topic, I would go in with some lumps of black mudstone from the ancient rock record, I'd go in with the established figures on our present input of carbon dioxide, and I'd say which bit of this observational science do you guys quarrel with, and why?

attack the science with science, go for the established scientists who promote a political agenda, go for the religious but don't lump all environmentalists or even all environmental laws together just because they care or want to protect the environment.

Most well - established scientific results went through periods containing mixtures of «good science» and «bad science», with the balances of opinion shifting among them, and claims that such and such a paper should never even have been published.

It is good that scientists are beginning to explore in the scholarly literature whether there might be more storms today, but for ABC to present both the supposed phenomenon and its possible cause as if they were established seemed to me to go too far — especially since it was presented along with saying that anyone who disagreed with the science they presented was like a holocaust denier or a denier of a link between cigarettes and cancer.

If it is the latter, however, the mere use of «black swans» to label their theory is confusing, to say the least, because the «black swan» example is a well - known metaphor used by Popper and other philosophers of science when explaining the occurrence of events that go against the predictions of well - established theories / laws.

For whatever physicist I have in me I am now going simplify, simplify, simply down to some established principles in science that can not be questioned without dumping major laws and principles found true over the years.

The good news is (at least from the perspective of science) that the role of carbon dioxide in climate change is very well established — at the theoretical level in terms of quantum physics, at the experimental level in terms of the study of the absorbtion and re-emission of radiation by carbon dioxide, at the numerical level (when equations get a little too complicated — but a good approximation can result from intensive computation by means of our fairly advanced computers), in terms of historical trends going back more than 500,000 years — and countless studies.