Sentences with phrase «for valid science»

I'm just an econ undergrad student, but it's my impression from my own instruction, and from friends» and family's work, that reproducibility is a crucial element for valid science in ANY field.

USGCRP did not perform the conditions precedent for valid science as cited in that language.

'' «Many scientists have disavowed past climate change research,» McKinley said, and he's waiting for valid science to convince him there's a problem and whether man is to blame.»

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.

The initial duty in applied science, research, or teaching is to do the job well: to design an airplane wing that will hold under stress, to find a valid equation for chemical equilibrium, or to help students gain sound understanding of metabolism.

... There seemed to me to be an ethics of belief whose clear mandate was «Adjust your belief to the evidence,» and I could not see why, if this was valid for common sense and science, it should not be valid for religion also.6

It can accept as valid only that for which there are already analogies and precedents that «objective» science can decipher.

Have you considered that for the most part in valid modern science, that euthenasia is commonly used for the killing?

With this conviction in mind, and thinking in particular of Wordsworth and Shelley, he is moved to ask: «Is it not possible that the standardized concepts of science are only valid within narrow limitations, perhaps too narrow for science itself?»

It doesn't mean science isn't valid in its own way, it is, and it doesn't mean we don't take responsibility for our own lives, we must.

Science suggests the gap between breastfeeding and formula feeding just isn't all that wide, but studies and statistics aside, there are personal and valid reasons for choosing formula over breastfeeding.

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.

«As length scales become smaller from several hundred miles to a few tens of miles, we discovered the point at which geostrophic balance becomes no longer valid — meaning that sea level is no longer useful for calculating ocean circulation,» said Qiu, professor at the UHM School of Ocean and Earth Science and Technology (SOEST).

«The advancement of knowledge in biological or behavioural sciences» is a valid purpose for the use of experimental animals under Britain's 1986 Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act.

But what about government, which has been making policy for generations without confirming that the science behind it is valid?

I'm thinking «we» are learning a lot in science about health, nutrition and disease and closing in on some good findings, but we are not there are extreme recommendations that fall outside of the obvious — like we eat too much sugar and processed food and chemicals is uncalled for and probably not valid.

Brad: The Weston Price Foundation is not a valid source of information for science - based nutrition.

love science, love science media,, lovesciencemedia, duana welch, relationship advice, love advice, dating advice, marriage advice Aw, thanks for the shout - out first of all And ya know, I think you have a very valid point — the phrase «separated but not divorced

It was written with a strong metaphor, in more of a picture book / storytelling style, so that it is as valid as part of a literature class as it is for science.

His books include The Art and Science of Teaching, Leaders of Learning, Making Classroom Assessments Reliable and Valid, The Classroom Strategies Series, Managing the Inner World of Teaching, Handbook for High Reliability Schools, Handbook for Personalized Competency - Based Education, and The Highly Engaged Classroom.

Locating valid and reliable data for Earth science investigations takes significant time.

But today, I come over to find some serious love for Mr. Smith, who's spending him some tax dollars in order to steer the science of climate more towards what he, as a freakin» politician, thinks is the more valid interpretation of the evidence.

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

There are a variety of valid reasons for lack of trust in climate science.

Losses of trust are valid not only for certain fields of science, but also for certain institutions, especially when political or economic partial interests impel such institutions to drive certain scientific developments whose advantages for the public are not clearly evident.

A community in one specialty can not thoroughly check the work of experts in another branch of science, but must accept their word for what is valid.

This latest report on the Science of Climate Change covered the key aspects of concern to those not part of the IPCC consensus, but did not involve them sufficiently, if at all, in developing the material and the result seems to be an official dismissal of the literature rather than a thorough development as is common for ideas necessary for the consensus view to be valid.

And all the time presuming the consensus forming, Popper's intersubjectivity, a major of tenet of Post Modern Science (PMS) was a valid replacement for Modern Science, as it has been practiced since Bacon introduced Cause & Effect to replace Aristotle's childish induction.

The alarmists» approach for some years has been to publicly deride the climate skeptics rather than present valid arguments for their so - called «consensus science.»

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....

Valid SCIENCE will readily allow Gas (and Coal) processes as fuel for such purposes, and I have been warning of this Uranium outcome for years, NOW however is when «it is happening».

Indeed, on one side we have the valid results of climate science, on the other side we have the need for well justified policy advice.

We see in you no evidence of foundation for your assertion of how much reduction in CO2 emission may be possible, and if you can construct a valid model for how climate factors determine CO2 levels then you've gone farther than all of science — an astounding feat worthy of a comic book supervillain indeed.

But... Much stuff that is lambasted and declared OT and «pseudoscientific» here at WUWT, actually holds material that is perfectly scientifically valid, and is important for the future of science.

The method, and its results, remain valid science, appropriate for publication and study.

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.

Second, the CIC has never proven that this hypothesis is valid science even though they are the ones arguing for huge public expenditures to implement their desired policies.

Maybe there is a valid reason for you to advocate because of your concern about a lack of balance, but: (1), I question the criteria you are using to measure that imbalance, and (2) as you become an advocate, you drift away from the science, and you drift away from the first order priority of presenting as much information as is reasonable, objectively, before laying out the argument for your conclusions.

The reason for this string of failures is that the «valid physics» was NOT being validly implemented within the improving knowledge of SCIENCE.

Need I remind you to provide peer - reviewed science to support the idea that we can ignore below 700 for some valid scientific reason, rather than because of your own brand of logic.

In this regard, here is the webpage of a retired atmospheric science professor who is sort of stickler for describing the greenhouse effect correctly: http://www.ems.psu.edu/~fraser/Bad/BadGreenhouse.html He is a bit militant in what the correct pedagogy is for my taste, but I think he does have a valid point that thinking about it in the wrong way can lead people astray.

It is not an ad hominem to say that the peer reviewed literature is the most likely source of the most valid science and that we should rely on it instead of blogs for our science knowledge...

I find a serious fracture in your «science» argument, namely, you keep talking about the Mann Hockey Stick graph as if it valid for determining temperature during the Medieval Warm Period.

«Overall, Broeckerâ $ ™ s paper (together with that of Sawyer) shows that valid predictions of global warming were published in the 1970s in the top journals Science and Nature, and warming has been proceeding almost exactly as predicted for at least 35 years now.

Taxpayers are also stakeholders with a valid interest in the conclusions drawn from billions of dollars invested in climate science, and many of these taxpayers are among those who need the information the most in order to better plan and prepare for climate change impacts.

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.

The Wegman committee concluded that the M+M critique was valid for statistical reasons having nothing to do with climate science per se and that the «hockey stick» conclusions were not valid.

One ClimateGate story I read used the Fraser Institute as their primary source, hardly a valid source for interpretaion of science.

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 *).