Sentences with phrase «much scientific fact»

How much scientific fact does it take to become scientific fact?

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.

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.