Sentences with phrase «much science does»

I mean, how much science does the average person have to know to screw in a compact fluorescent bulb?

While they will certainly miss out on the pleasure and intellectual excitement that come from knowing how the world works, how much science do they actually need to know to make up their minds about the issues surrounding genetic engineering or global warming?

Not exact matches

The same things you generally do to avoid catching any flu — wash your hands and steer clear of the guy hacking and sniffing on the subway or airplane (and hey, if you're want to try stocking up on Vitamin C, you'd be in good company, even if science suggests you're probably not accomplishing much).

The H1B highly skilled immigrant visa is limited to 65,000, with an additional 20,000 for holders of advanced degrees — not much when you consider that U.S. universities pump out 1 science graduate for every five China does.

It's just an electronic ether that doesn't really exist, much like heaven (as far as science can prove).

Mastering is as much art as it is science, but Landr, a Montreal startup, believes its software can do the job just as well as any human.

By then, it's expensive and can often be too late in the process for medical science to do much good.

The government's Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology has released its report on e-commerce in Canada, titled «Pursuing the Promise,» and it paints the same picture we've known for some time now — that despite Canadians being among the most prodigious users of the Internet, they really aren't doing much online business-wise.

Tanking is obviously an inexact science, and has much more to do with lineup construction and the allocation of playing time than anything else — players are professional athletes, and convincing them to lose on purpose to bring younger, cheaper new talent to their franchise isn't exactly a great sell.

You don't even need to know much about the science behind hydroponics to bring the magic of growing delicious plants into your own home.

Kevin Hogan, author of The Science of Influence, explains that «most people react to the fear of loss and the threat of pain in a much more profound way than they do for gain.»

Writing on the Greater Good Science Center blog recently, sociologist and positive psychology expert Christine Carter made much the same case, writing that the secret to accomplishing more is to stop doing everything you dislike doing.

Shortly thereafter, in 1992, just as Berners - Lee's World Wide Web had come to fruition, Neal Stephenson was inspired by the recent invention, which led to him publishing Snow Crash, a science - fiction novel that illustrated much of today's online life, including a virtual reality where people meet, do business, and play.

But according to happiness expert and author Christine Carter there's a more fundamental problem with adjusting your behavior to please others — not only does it harm you, but science shows that other people don't actually like it much either.

Syngenta established a Beijing research center in 2008 and is doing biotech science there now; it will be doing much more after the deal closes.

With so much science attesting to the enormous gap in effectiveness between email and face - to - face requests, why do so many people persist in opting for email?

Are you aware that there is science behind how much to sleep and when to wake up, but you don't want to dive deep into this stuff?

From implantable devices that provide a steady trickle of medicine over months, to patches that reduce the need for injections, to ingestible sensors that track how people take their meds, the bold new science of drug delivery may be doing as much to improve medicine as the medicines themselves in some cases.

And reams of social science research show that strong unions do much more than that: They bolster regional economies, increase democratic participation, and even strengthen the social safety net for non-unionized workers.

There is so much new science emerging around health and human longevity, and what companies and individuals are doing with it is unbelievable.

You see, there's an entire subfield of computer science that can roughly be described as «pulling information out of things that look exactly like the Bitcoin transaction graph», and while these researchers haven't done much to Bitcoin yet — that's only because they're still fighting over the grant money.

We know from various studies done in the social sciences in the past forty years, as well as from fifteen plus years of my being involved with personas, the trio of users / buyers / customers makes decisions based on much more than just content or information.

We don't know much about the author other than he appears to have no professional financial background or qualifications, is well - qualified in computer science and claims experience in data science and simulation.

If you reject any science that doesn't take place in a petri dish you don't have much left.

I think it's a clever trick to make people (young people generally) who don't know much about science to think you have to be on one «side» or the other (God's side or Satan's side?)

I don't think the human GREED within the financial industry has much to do with understanding science and technology.

This doesn't go into the realm of atheism vs. theism as much as it does go into the realm of science vs. nonsense.

«Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.»

But, I have much more reason to place my faith in science, that we will eventually find the answer, than I do these ridiculous myths.

It really does nt matter what my beliefs system was, let's just say it was based on chaos theory and science as applied to occult arts, I have since moved on to more pragmatic beliefs but I clearly recall how oppressive they were and surprised at how much propaganda they spread that was based on their ignorance.

Yes - science has given us much I believe in science and I believe God is proud to watch the progress man has made using the nature and means He has given them to create and do the almost unthinkable.

In my opinion, being agnostic on many things, I believe we have much more to learn in Dawkins» area of expertise before we can really get to an educated answer to the issue, but that is just a gut feeling, but with serious consideration to what we don't actually know on the issue from these fields of science.

You don't know much about science then do you?

Atheism doesn't require much science, but does require logic.

This didn't matter too much until the rise of science exposed an insufficiency.

My Princeton political science colleagues Nolan McCarty and Howard Rosenthal, together with Keith Poole at the University of Houston, have done a statistical analysis showing that the voting behavior of a congressman is much better predicted by his party affiliation today than it was 25 years ago.

It just seems that people like Hawking ignore religion completely when a HUGE part of science is questioning all beliefs including your own which I don't think human beings do as much as they should, or respect other people's opinions.

Regardless of whatever Hitler claimed his official belief system was, you have conceded that he did base his policies, very much, on science, reason, eugenics, and the theory of evolution.

Since atheists over-value these things... I can very much cite Hitler as an example where «reason» and «logic» and «science» and «evolution» led to disaster, and it did.

If science is so much a part of your life, then why don't you apply a bit of it to your god.

We know much more than we did about the origins of science; we know vastly more about nature.

... time to split the country... the northern part should join up with Canada, a very progressive and successful country with gay marriage, a place where almost everyone would like to call home and... jesusland where ignorance is rampant, where god will solve all your problems, where «science» will be abolished and where eventually all creativity and problem solving will be seen as blasphemous... very much in keeping with taliban thinking don't you think?

This indicates the kinds of contributions that Buddhism has already made to science and how much remains to be done.

Writing in Science (January 27, 1984), R. Jeffrey Smith shows that the deployment of the cruise missile, for example, resulted not as much from the Soviets» previous deployment of the SS20 as it did from commercial and political forces in the West.

Translation: Science is hard, and I didn't study much in school.

He was simply stating that we understand science much better now than we did in the Colonial times, and thus understand the causes behind hurricanes and other natural disasters.

The Holy Quran is all about giving simplified examples for the brains of that time, and addressed to illiterate Nomadic Beduins of the dry Arabian desert to understand and they have managed to do understand it and achieved miraculously for centuries in creating a multinational Islamic communities that has contributed so much to today's knowledge and science.

Do you have any idea how much fraud goes on in Science?

Face it, you have no idea if there are any gods, or if satan inspired your book (a god would not have gotten so much wrong) You act just like those ridiculous crewationist sites caliming science but clearly do not understand how science works... you do not know how logic works.

Once you realize that the Bible does not purport to be a textbook of science, the old controversy between religion and science vanishes... The doctrine of the Trinity is much more abstruse than anything in relativity or quantum mechanics; but, being necessary for salvation, the doctrine is stated in the Bible.