Not exact matches
I'm going to try to be more humble by also listening to more
nonscientists and by thinking about
what they have to say without trying to judge or divide people.
Consider the negative and positive biases that exist concerning Ph.D. s. Most
nonscientists have a very strong image of
what Ph.D. s are like.
Yet Illes and Wassermann are enthusiastic about my investigation, seeing it as an opportunity for a
nonscientist to describe
what, if anything, MRIs and other emerging brain - reading technologies can tell us about the three pounds of mushy tissue between our ears, home organ to that mysterious realm called the «mind.»
Here's a question I've raised before, only this time expressed in two new ways: * Whatever the errors of Crichton and Will, to
what extent, if any, should
nonscientist observers of human culture treat science uniquely — that is, in a way they treat no other aspect of culture — by abstaining from writing about it?
He said
what's being written about Spencer's study by
nonscientists «has no basis in reality.»
To cite the twentieth - century instrumental record, without mentioning all the melting — as even the occasional scientist may do before general audiences — is often suspected of being special pleading, trying to confuse
nonscientists with carefully selected facts,
what lawyers with a losing case sometimes attempt to do with juries.
VTG,
What I see here is a
nonscientist who knows far less about this «dispute» than Judith.
The EPA website used to have a good explanation for
nonscientists but the new crew in Washington has scrubbed it of
what we really know about the causes of climate change.
Here's a question I've raised before, only this time expressed in two new ways: * Whatever the errors of Crichton and Will, to
what extent, if any, should
nonscientist observers of human culture treat science uniquely — that is, in a way they treat no other aspect of culture — by abstaining from writing about it?