Basically there is as
much scientific fact that Santa Claus exists as there is that HE exists and I stopped believing in santa long ago.
How
much scientific fact does it take to become scientific fact?
Not exact matches
t's not so
much an assault on Christianity as an adherence to historical
facts and
scientific facts and... well... just basically
facts.
In
fact, there have been a large number of scientists throughout history who have made major
scientific discoveries that have shaped so
much of our knowledge, and they worked out of desire to learn the truth about the origin and nature of God's creation.
If you're in a cult, consider how
much more likely it is that you will think and act erratically compared to someone who has not been heavily indoctrinated in a belief system that requires no
scientific facts or logic.
To attack something when you're too ignorant of the
facts (and too lazy to be bothered to learn about the opposing side) to even know what you're attacking only shows how
much society has to gain by embracing the
scientific method (even if you reject some theories).
But, to deny a
scientific fact which has been supported by just as
much evidence and data as gravity or the germ theory is plain ignorance.
Much of the time, theories will have to be adjusted and altered according to experiment and observation.BUT... Some of the time theory becomes
fact... provable
scientific fact, such as that we can use silicon and germanium in such a way that we can create electrical switches from these elements and we can use this to create computers.
In
fact,
scientific progress is
much more a matter of pruning and reevaluation, wherein problems thought to be resolved come crashing back at us with resounding irresolution.
Since then, for a number of reasons (air and water pollution, health concerns ignored and in
fact unknown by
scientific medicine, ecological issues), this questioning of the omnicompetence of the
scientific method to uncover the truth, and of the creative value of technological «progress,» has deepened and spread and now penetrates
much further into the culture as a whole.
I even believe everybody agrees with me and that I am always right, and in the very face of
much contradictory evidence,
facts, and despite a complete lack of any kind of hard
scientific evidence.
Nature is in
fact always
much richer and more complex than our imaginative and mathematical models, and we unduly shrivel our understanding of the cosmos if we equate it in a simple way with our
scientific schemes.
Vast numbers of people think that the
fact of a relatively settled order of nature, along with the
scientific interpretation of change and the description of the inner dynamics of human personality (and
much else as well), has ruled out once and for all genuine novelty and made change nothing more than the reshuffling of bits of matter - in - motion.
Finally, the
fact that I treat with respect an idea that has
much in its favor, that is believed by the great majority of scientists, that has no decisive arguments against it, and that may well turn out to be true — I am speaking here of the
scientific theory called neo-Darwinism — is not «appeasement» but intellectual humility and honesty.
The church is welcome not to support those
scientific facts —
much the way Galileo was excommunicated for daring to reorder the planets with Earth not at the center.]
Management Today recently critiqued OnePoll in an article that opened as follows: «What naive readers may not realise is that
much of what is reported as
scientific is not in
fact genuine research at all, but dishonest marketing concocted by PR firms.»
According to reporting in
Scientific American's sister publication Nature, minutes of the meeting show that the researchers were in
fact much more circumspect, saying things such as «a major earthquake in the area is unlikely but can not be ruled out» and «because L'Aquila is in a high - risk zone it is impossible to say with certainty that there will be no large earthquake.»
That said, one could argue that it is too
much to expect that any of these three would be able to catch this type of fraud and that, in
fact, the
scientific process did work.
In the end, its staying power may derive from the
fact that the debate rests not so
much upon numbers as upon an abiding faith in the value of a robust
scientific enterprise.
We feature a small number of dissenting voices in our coverage, not because we seek to be impartial between «
scientific fact and sceptic fiction», as Bob Ward suggests, but because reflecting the different sides of an ongoing debate is very
much in the public interest.
On Aug. 3, the
scientific article in Nature finally gave us some
facts about the
much - hyped experiments that involved editing the genomes of human embryos at the Center for Embryonic Cell and Gene Therapy at Oregon Health and Science University.
But this last decade of
scientific research has shown us that body fat is
much more than that — in
fact, it's associated with increased tissue inflammation, high triglycerides, high blood pressure, insulin resistance and a greater risk of heart disease and cancer, among many other things.
I'd suggest you do some serious research on this topic, as there are
much information floating around the Internet, mostly from anecdotal claims than of
scientific facts.
Of course, if you've read my books or spent
much time on my web site, you know I care about
scientific facts.
Scientific facts that you can not change are that meat requires
much more resources (water and land) than plants and harms the environment
much more even not considering global warming.
My point here is that
much of what we have accepted is based more on what others feel we should eat, not necessarily
scientific fact.
Now, despite the
fact that we have more
scientific knowledge and more access to research and literature than ever before regarding the importance of calories, the energy balance and how to structure our diets for optimal muscle building and fat loss through the use of flexible dieting,
much of the training and dieting community is still stuck in the dark ages.
Diane Ravitch's claim that school voucher programs have failed is based on ignoring
much of the
scientific evidence of their success, misreporting the
facts regarding the studies that she does discuss, and the 1 percent difference between 95 % confidence and 94 % confidence.
Goodell presents a wealth of fascinating
facts such as these in his well researched book, which does an excellent job of presenting the case without overloading the reader with
scientific jargon or too
much statistical information.
It is not so
much important, in what way
scientific results were received - based on the theoretical generalizations of the already known
facts (with the possible use of logical or mathematical modeling), or the
facts, empirically received by the analysis paper writing.
In
fact, there is no
scientific proof of the projections of global warming,
much less that it is occurring because of human action and not because of natural phenomena.
Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2) these scientists view global warming as a political «cause» rather than a balanced
scientific inquiry and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that
much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of
facts and data.
Cohen made it sound like the chart's wide range of climate outcomes was due to
scientific uncertainty, when in
fact much of the range is tied to social and economic unknowns.
In earlier times, when the
scientific and intellectual élite was
much smaller, more compact, and less attached to government funding, this simple
fact would have been diffused among the governing classes, instead of being suppressed by a system of self - selecting committees and bureaucratic structures.
Could it possibly be that the reason for the partisan stance and inflammatory adjectives in the blog posting above is
much more closely linked to the
fact that some of the blog authors «suffered a major challenge to their
scientific reputations» from the VS work?
One day I started checking the
facts and data — first I started with a sense of doubt but then I became outraged when I discovered that
much of what the IPCC and the media were telling us was sheer nonsense and was not even supported by any
scientific facts and measurements.
And in
fact when you look at the
scientific literature, it's an interesting disconnect because the modelers who study emissions and how to control those emissions are generally
much more comfortable setting goals in terms of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas concentrations because that comes more or less directly out of their models and is
much more proximate or more closely connected to what humans actually do to screw up the climate in the first place, which is emit these greenhouse gases.
You can not just label different groups of people and then insist that they all conform to your label, doing so is, once again, thinking in a «religious», IE non
fact based, manner, regardless of how
much you may think you are «being
scientific» in your own mindset.
Dr. T. Ball — Principia
Scientific International — July 21, 2017 This is the first of a series of articles in which I will provide basic
facts about climate and climate change, so the public will understand how
much they have been misled by those with a political agenda.
If he can't, then his comments don't have
much scientific validity — probably no more than yours, in
fact.
But
facts matter very
much in
scientific debates.
This phenomenon is partly attributable to the
fact that economic interests opposed to US climate change policies have skillfully and successfully framed the US climate change debate as a matter about which there is insufficient
scientific evidence or too
much adverse impact on the US economy to warrant action.
I did mention that imho mainstream media suffers from too
much emphasis on news (as opposed to robust knowledge) and on mere
facts (to the detriment of explaining the
scientific process of getting to understand those
facts).
It has not been «proven'that cigarettes cause cancer, yet the accumulation of
facts (
scientific evidence) eventually resulted in our accepting that they do and most importantly after
much fighting, a societal response occurred.
«I (William: The Obama administration of course means all fellow warmists do not have patience for
scientific discussion as the warmists can not win the argument based on science) don't have
much patience for people who deny (William: deny in this context means to present
facts that disprove the faulty hypothesis) climate change.»
I personally published what was wrong (with) my own original 1971 cooling hypothesis a few years later when more data and better models came along and further analysis showed [anthropogenic global warming] as the
much more likely... In
fact, for me that is a very proud event — to have discovered with colleagues why our initial assumptions were unlikely and better ones reversed the conclusions — an early example of
scientific skepticism in action in climatology.»
The
fact is that the HS didn't do
much for environmentalism anyway — environmental politics remained the sport of the establishment, because it failed to find popular support; and
scientific certainty was not needed for the creation of political institutions prior to the HS.
Furthermore,
much of this coverage denigrated climate science by either promoting distrust in scientists and
scientific institutions or placing acceptance of climate change in an ideological, rather than
fact - based, context.
Given these
facts, what are the alarmist community and the Democrats, whose platform hysterically calls climate change «an urgent threat,» to do about research that has found that «
much of the
scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue»?
For
much of his two - decade campaign, Al Gore has been presenting the
scientific facts on global warming while most have wanted to cling to more comforting beliefs.