Sentences with phrase «how science works»

To not accept the reality of ACC requires a lack of knowledge of how science works or some sort of mental block against the overwhelming evidence about ACC.

The scientific method is how science works.

«In this case the assessment reaches conclusions inconvenient for political advocates on both sides — but that is how science works,» said Roger A. Pielke, Jr., a political science professor at the University of Colorado — Boulder, who's been writing on the evolution of the global change research office since its early days and has frequently been called on by Republicans in Congress to testify about climate policy.

They display their ignorance of how science works.

The worse part of it is that since so many people are not trained even at a rudimentary level in how science works i.e. the method and philosophy of it, they don't have a confident enough background to take the legalistic type approach to argument apart.

Which of us do you think is more likely to have an understanding of how science works?

A world in which research scientists can be hounded out of their jobs for political reasons, by politically motivated campaigns of lies and misrepresentation by folks not having the faintest about how science works yet hating its conclusions, would be an ever - so - slightly more dangerous world, in which one more group willing to speak truth to power would be chilled out of existence.

People who have no scientific training and / or no prior exposure to the scientific culture are attempting to engage in a discourse with scientists, and these people just don't understand how science works.

I know how science works and that it does no accommodate conspiracies against the truth.

Posted in How Science Works, Media and the Public Tagged climate change, climategate, copenhagen, CRU, global warming, IPCC, media, politics, science 7 Comments

Posted in How Science Works Tagged censorship, climate change, climategate, CRU, debate, easterbrook, global warming, media, monbiot, science, swifthack, u of t 11 Comments

Moreover, a broader scientific consensus may make a stronger impression by showing how science works in terms of finding the most credible explanation.

I think you may have a bit of a misunderstanding about how science works and how it is almost universally mangled in media reports.

...... how science works.

This demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of how science works.

That article suffered from the same myopic view of how science works that you are demonstrating.

Prof Allen said: «The idea of producing a document of near - biblical infallibility is a misrepresentation of how science works, and we need to look very carefully about what the IPCC does in future.»

But we should also remember the description of how science works by the late, great physicist, Richard Feynman:

So is this how science works now, BBD, with anonymous authors?

Thats how science works.

Related Volcanoes, Tree Rings, and Climate Models: This is how science works Fossil Focus: Using Plant Fossils to Understand Past Climates and Environments Atmospheric oxygen over Phanerozoic time Coupled carbon isotopic and sedimentological records from the Permian system of eastern Australia reveal the response of atmospheric carbon dioxide to glacial growth and decay during the late Palaeozoic Ice Age

At least that's usually how science works.

A while back I read an interesting little book: Popper vs. Kuhn: the Battle for Understanding How Science Works by Massimo Pigliucci.

Acclaimed environmental author Lynne Cherry and Portland - based photographer Gary Braasch have targeted their book to middle - school - age children, but it also may serve as a helpful primer on how science works in general.

A person who is a true scientist adheres to the PROCESS of how science works — which boils down to the Scientific Method.

This is not how science works, by ad hominem attack.

That's not how science works either.

Again, this is a matter of judgement and I think that one requires a knowledge of how science works and how peer review works to be able to judge if what was revealed in the illegal release of the CRU emails showed anything that undermined the science or process.

It's how science works

What is really scary is that you know how science works, or should do after all these years, yet you still insist on misrepresenting your very own science and the scientific process.

That's how science works, in part.

Consensus is how science works, and it is the difference between truth as we know it and poorly supported speculation we don't.»

They deeply misunderstand how science works.

The attitude of a scientist, or a journalist who had the slightest idea how science works, (or any other process based on rational thought — journalism, for example) would surely be to ask whether the article was true, look for evidence, etc..

It does nt understand how science works..

small wonder you have such a messed up view of how science works now.

It's a huge, huge mistake to assume that scientists have any appreciation for how science works.

Well, no — that's just not how science works.

Look, Jim, why don't you go away and read up just what empirical data actually means and how science works on available evidence not proof.

If you're referring to scientists in general as «they» in the sentence with all the tenants being held accountable for the scientific method (presumably by some authority capable of holding somebody accountable, the «science police» I guess) then sadly, no, this is not how science works.

But you know, this is how science works.

Because I don't have an idealized vision of how science works, I am not surprised by the actions of people involved in this affair, either on the part of skeptics or scientists.

All this proves is Senator Madigan's poor grasp of how science works.

That's how science works: it's a process.

It's always possible that I'm the one who's in fulminant denial of how science works, in which case I can only beg your forgiveness, Andrew.

You're letting the fact that a model of something should be a good fit make you want to identify the model with what it's modeling, but that's not how science works.

The IPCC's reports are why ours and other governments... are calling for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions... [those] attacking the IPCC... have never researched nor published any climate science in peer - reviewed journals - and peer review is how science works.»

Climategate appears to be very very serious indeed for the way the public perceive how science works, as well as how government / media works to decide and implement policy.

And if you think that the UN pays for much science (mine included) then you clearly don't know much about how science works.

This is actually quite sensible and it is how science works.