Sentences with phrase «for scientific conversation»

Not exact matches

Of course Godless is free to drop out of the conversation any time, the fact that he / she (sorry for presuming male earlier) said, «We can continue this when you demonstrate a basic understanding of the scientific method, logic and critical thinking»» shows a level of impatience and crotchetyness.

Your standing now upon sciences» stardom leavening such as scientific periodical has little weightiness to be so garnished in our conversations except as your denials for reasonably furthering one's relative agendas due an inferiority complex.

The Scientific American referenced the same study and mentioned that «separate findings suggest that parents who explain the reasons behind their rules and turn disagreements into conversations leave youngsters better prepared for future disputes.»

Studies about the lasting importance of a child's experiences in the first three years of life, once relegated to scientific or academic journals, are now fueling a broad national conversation about what this growing body of research means for families and communities across the country.

Scientific American was the conference media partner and our executive editor, Fred Guterl, joined them for a conversation about the future of the technological world that we're building today.

Recommended for good long scientific conversations about genomics, origins of species, and DNA.»

Sullivan urged scientists to contribute constructively to conversations about the role of scientific enterprise, calling for a buildup of the «stores of scientific knowledge» rather than investment only in what we think may yield immediate benefits.

Hartmann commended AAAS, in his conversation with Holt: «For anybody who has any interest at all into a deep dive into the entire spectrum of any scientific disciplines, your organization is the place to go, and Science magazine is the thing to be reading,» said Hartmann, a long - time member.

DiChristina: Yeah, I mean I think one of the things we don't realize working on the insides of Scientific American all the time is that the editor is not just working with the scientists but also they're reporting and going out to meetings and doing other things; they're [scouring] the world for the best science that matters for readers, have a lot of expertise themselves and it just seemed to me that this would be the kind of thing that readers might really find fascinating — what the editors of Scientific American [are] thinking based on all their conversations with the experts of the day covering the various areas of science and technology and how it affects our lives; and this was the genesis of this story.

(Scientific American is part of Nature Publishing Group) The co-workers, Jan Witkowski, director of the lab's Banbury conference center, and Alex Gann, editorial director of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, share Watson's sense of humor, his appetite for gossip, and most of his research interests, so the restaurant conversation shifted from the sex lives of various scientists, to debates over the relevance of left - handed DNA, and back to the legacy of the double helix.

Shifrin and Rejeski's conversation focuses on the need for professional science communicators, how to push a scientific message out through non-traditional media, and why The Big Bang Theory is great for science geeks.

The amount of regurgitated nonsense, logical fallacies, appalling personal comments and smears against the whole scientific community that pass for argument on WUWT and similar, simply preclude most reasonable conversations on the subject.

There are also outlets like The Conversation that can amplify your research and / or scientific expertise to a broad audience, and that will publish edited pieces you write and pitch to them for free.

Nina Tiecholz stated in her book, The Big Fat Surprise, «The idea that fat and saturated fat are unhealthy has been so ingrained in our national conversation for so long that we tend to think of it more as «common sense» than scientific hypothesis.

There really is no excuse for hawking a diet pill without credible scientific evidence to back it, but is this misstep worth bringing down a whole empire that has sprouted conversations about health and wellness that may have otherwise never taken place?

For a few days it seemed as if New York was awash with color, and that both the scientific and improvisational sides of the conversation were ably represented, perhaps for the first time in many yeaFor a few days it seemed as if New York was awash with color, and that both the scientific and improvisational sides of the conversation were ably represented, perhaps for the first time in many yeafor the first time in many years.

The amount of regurgitated nonsense, logical fallacies, appalling personal comments and smears against the whole scientific community that pass for argument on WUWT and similar, simply preclude most reasonable conversations on the subject.

The op - ed favorably cited by Mike Mann says this explcitly, «That means we need to clearly say there is no scientific debate about climate change — and instead shift the conversation to next steps... Those of us who write opinion need to press for public - policy action, steps that move us as a planet forward.

If you study the conservative approach to climate change policy long enough, the implication that they are trying to participate in a scientific conversation starts to fade away and you realize the underlying logic they are using actually starts from the conclusion that regulation and government intervention are bad and proceeds to the premise that there is no real problem with climate change, at which point, they pick around for snippets to support their premise.

Takeaway 4: The scientific conversation on carbon removal is an implicit call for increased R&D for carbon removal solutions.

It's understandable how, if a person had never once consulted a scientific paper or sat down for a serious, ideology - free conversation about climate change with one of the overwhelming majority of scientists who agree that man - made climate change is a real, observable phenomenon, he could be confused into thinking that the greatest challenge of our time is comparable to the medieval superstitious that arose in the absence of scientific understanding.

The President has reportedly told U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt during several conversations that he supports Pruitt's plan for a «red - team, blue - team» debate aimed at challenging the prevailing scientific consensus about humans» impact on climate change, a senior administration official reportedly told E&E News.

I call it normal in that I have heard such discussions, criticisms, and conversations for decades about scientific research by scientists themselves.

Fortunately, the scientific conversation is now moving onto the Internet (it has been for a while, but is picking up steam), where research can be published and criticized without intermediary «gatekeepers» who get to decide what gets seen and what doesn't.

The conversation should have dissolved permanently into guffaws the moment Cox was forced to name an intergovernmental panel's summary for policymakers as his «scientific evidence.»

SEARCH recognizes that future scientific understanding of the Arctic will be shaped by the research questions that we ask now, and the utility of the answers for policymaking will be enhanced by early and iterative conversations between researchers and policy staff.

Instead of misdirecting the conversation to Prof Lindzen, I'm still waiting for an answer based on the scientific method to the question: where is the putative global damage caused by CO2?

The evidence for this is in precisely what happens in venues like E&E that have effectively dispensed with substantive peer review for any papers that follow the editor's political line — you end up with a backwater of poorly presented and incoherent contributions that make no impact on the mainstream scientific literature or conversation.

He is unfailingly cautious in making accusations, but the weight of his documentation is devastating for scientific sellouts like Dr. S. Fred Singer and for organizations like the Cato Institute and the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which have chosen to insert themselves in the the political process and in the public conversation - in a way that is, often, anything but forthright.

Studies about the lasting importance of a child's experiences in the first three years of life, once relegated to scientific or academic journals, are now fueling a broad national conversation about what this growing body of research means for families and communities across the country.

While predictably these videos do not show anything illegal on Planned Parenthood's part, medical and scientific conversations can be upsetting to hear, and I immediately apologized for the tone that was used, which did not reflect the compassion that people have come to know and expect from Planned Parenthood.