Sentences with phrase «in valid science»

What is missed in this «entire discussion» is that the «Kyoto remediations» are not dealing with a «real & existent» problem process, i.e. there is not a valid «carbon - climate» link made in valid SCIENCE.

It is only creationists that use that term in an effort to try to put holes in valid science.

Not exact matches

Musk should look at the team Trump has put in charge of the country's climate - and - energy future and draw the obvious conclusions: Valid climate science is now officially under siege, and sustainable or renewable energy sources are about to lose out big - time to Big Oil.

Thus, the complaint that some people use Christian Science in order to attain secular ends of health, wealth or success is a wholly valid one from the point of view of Christian Science itself.

My objective in this short essay has been to show that in «stripping off the shell of the out - of - date science, we find the permanently valid kernel of... [Aquinas's] thought on the soul,» as John Saward wrote in Redeemer in the Womb.

So much is this true that the total separation of faith and religion from life and culture became a cardinal principle of a new outlook, now called The Philosophy of Science, the doctrine of which is that nothing is valid in society, in community law, or in educational principle, unless it belongs to the experimental order and can be proven by the senses.

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.

These are common to all human beings and sciences in a way equally as valid as in 330 BC.

In science, experiments are designed to (dis) prove that a theory conforms to valid deductive reasoning.

Or, to put it another way, is not mythology an essential element in human thought, and is it not therefore just as valid an approach to reality as, e.g. that of natural science?

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

ThinkForYourself, you babbled on about «Do you also not think that plate tectonics is valid science since you can't mash up South America and Africa in a lab?

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?»

In fact, all religions and secularist ideologies have a common task which unites them, namely the humanization of the modern technological culture through the development of a common post-modern humanism which incorporates the valid insights of all religions, ideologies and the sciences.

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.

My point, however, is that His actions in this world have consequences which we should be able to detect, so some science questions about God are perfectly valid.

I don't really put too much stock in academic authority of people in social sciences until they talk about testable predictions like real scientists do; or at the very least deal with # s. Without that, they're just people who have opinions that are no more nor less valid than anyone who isn't an academic social scientist.

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.

«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.

The new licence is valid until 2028 March 31, a ten - year timeframe that aligns with CNL's Long - Term Strategy, which will position the organization as a global leader in nuclear science and technology.

If all one is interested in is perusing a range of points of view, whether backed up by valid science or not, it's a reasonable source.

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.

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.

Explain the importance of networking science in communication purpose across the globe by supporting with valid arguments.

I think Michaels» points are valid about (1) hysterical media headlines and (2) lack of regional context in the Science article.

Considering the involvement in the anti-global warming community of industry shills with a proven past involvement in industry funded conspiracies to cast doubt upon valid science (see e.g. «Merchants of Doubt» or http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/plagiarism.conspiracies.felonies.v1.0.pdf), not to mention the criminal break - in to CRU's email, I think the existence of a conspiracy against climate science is pretty well established.

So, when I see posts like # 2, I am reminded that there is a concerted campaign being waged here in the United States to disseminate doubt about valid climate science results.

By adroitly combining valid information with culturally affirming meanings, these communications succeed in getting people to reflectively assess evidence that they might otherwise dismiss out of hand (btw, if your goal is not simply to get people to open - mindedly consider evidence using their own powers of reason — if you just want to make them believe something, who cares how — you are not a science communicator; you are a propagandist).

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.

It's always amusing to read in the «skept - o - sphere,» the thousands and thousands and thousands of comments on the subject of whether there is a «consensus» and even more interestingly, precisely how big that «consensus» is, from people who say that the noting the existence of a «consensus» is not only a fallacious argument, but that in fact noting that there is a «consensus» is antithetical to the valid practice of science.

In that case they could both be fair reflections of the science — within certain limits there doesn't have to be just one single valid interpretation.

Is it valid to conclude as the item quotes «It just means that the standard statistical methods of science are so weak and flawed as to permit a field of study (parapsychology) to sustain itself in the complete absence of any subject matter.»?

Those who have chosen careers in science and technology understand all too well that the scientific method itself is being called into question as a valid way to understand the world around us.

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

On November 28, the paper told policymakers to ignore science because it could hurt jobs and increase economic hardship «in the name of global warming theories» its editors don't believe are valid.

In short, they are making the case that there is no valid skepticism because it's largely an attack from political opposition to science itself, which is precisely what the creationism argument is.

You need to drop the idea that a consensus of anything in science research will establish the truth.It is NOT a rational, or valid way to determine something that was originally conjectured to explain something.It can take just ONE person to prove everybody else wrong.

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.

In science, a discovery is not considered valid unless it can be independently reproduced — pretty much a good idea.

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.

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....

Any lawsuits based on what the skeptic's go - to think tanks might believe about the climate science contained in IPCC 2007 AR4 aren't likely to get very far in the courts, because the EPA has already been successful in defending the process it used in evaluating and documenting the version of climate science it claims is valid.

In the «Linear Model» of interfacing science and policy, science informs policy by producing objective, valid, and reliable knowledge.

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.

In this regard, with the wisdom that historical hindsight affords, everyone on Climate Etc can appreciate the wisely conservative governance of Ronald Wilson Reagan, in ratifying the Montreal Accords, as guided by the «inconvenient truths» of atmospheric science — truths that none - the-less are verifiably valid (V&VIn this regard, with the wisdom that historical hindsight affords, everyone on Climate Etc can appreciate the wisely conservative governance of Ronald Wilson Reagan, in ratifying the Montreal Accords, as guided by the «inconvenient truths» of atmospheric science — truths that none - the-less are verifiably valid (V&Vin ratifying the Montreal Accords, as guided by the «inconvenient truths» of atmospheric science — truths that none - the-less are verifiably valid (V&V)!

the social sciences in general lack rigor only read the link, not going to read the actual study, so your point is valid

However, he recognises that critics of man - made global warming make valid points, and frequently debates the science with man - made global warming critics in blog discussions and on Twitter.

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.

How does past research by Max Boykoff offer us a valid and reliable picture of trends relative to false balance in coverage of climate science?