Sentences with phrase «not in a scientific context»

Regrettably «the amount of change we could apply in the future» isn't a «given» — at least not in a scientific context (it could perhaps be a tenet of faith in a religious or political context, but that is a different kind of debate).

Not exact matches

historical Jesus, lmfao... show me any historical evidence of jesus... let's start with his remains... they don't exist - your explanation, he rose to the heavens... historical evidence - no remains, no proof of existence (not a disproof either, just not a proof)... then let's start with other historians writing about the life of Jesus around his time or shortly after, as outside neutral observers... that doesn't exist either (not a disproof again, just not a proof)... we can go on and on... the fact is, there is not a single proving evidence of Jesus's life in an historical context... there is no existence of Jesus in a scientific context either (virgin birth... riiiiiight)... it is just written in a book, and stuck in your head... you have a right to believe in what you must... just don't base it on history or science... you believe because you do... it is your right... but try not to put reason into your faith; that's when you start sounding unreasonable, borderline crazy...

You don't know what theories are in a scientific context, you make an argument equivalent to «people can't take strides greater than ten feet, therefore it's impossible to run a marathon,» and you think that the lack of a full understanding about a particular hypothetical explanation is some kind of demonstration that science is an abject failure.

For like Whitehead and Dewey, Kadushin understood that the concept of organic thinking offered an approach to logic and the foundations of knowledge that was an alternative to the perversions of the sort of blind faith in natural science that had come to dominate the intellectual cultures of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries; an alternative that did not attempt to devalue science or replace it with a nonrational mysticism, but which did attempt to place scientific thought into a broader cultural context in which other forms of cultural expression such as religious and legal reasoning could play important and non-subservient roles.

Attitudes which are present in the context of scientific work may be desirable elsewhere, but are not transferable in any easy way.

To admit that our ideas require public verification does not mean that the scientific forum, or any academic context for that matter, is the best one in which to test the truth of revelation's substance.

By its stress on event and on patterning and integration, by its insistence that relationships constitute an entity, by its concern for an awareness of the depths of human experience (motivations, desires, drives, and «emotional intensity,» for example), as well as by its recognition that we are part of the world and continuous with what has gone before us and even now surrounds and affects us, process thought not only has been in agreement with the newer scientific emphasis on «wholeness,» but has also contributed a perspective which can give that emphasis a meaningful setting and a context in the structure of things in a dynamic universe.

Tell me, is there anything out there that clearly states that fine tuning, in the context that you use the term, is not in debate within the scientific community?

But anyway, I realise that there is great advantage to social - scientific criticism in helping us understand the Bible, but sometimes I've read interpretations put forward by such scholars and I've sort of thought, «Hmmm... that would be a good interpretation that would fit with the apparent social context... but I can't see how it fits with the literary context.»

Furthermore, your usage of her quotation and name has made Brittany, myself, and the other administrators uncomfortable in many aspects, not the least of which being your attempts to discredit a single comment — used without context and with no scientific rational — while pandering to your «popular - science» tripe (much of which is woefully misconstrued, misused, or flat - out wrong).

Ulrich, for instance, writes about «the need for research to establish scientific guidelines to help interior designers select art that is reliably stress reducing and physiologically supportive...» But he is talking only about art in hospitals and in other medical contexts, where he believes the sole critical standard is whether art «improves outcomes in patients, and if it doesn't, it's bad art.»

He made a series of statements in a 1978 Science paper that are startling given his role as a spokesperson for science: ``... unconscious or dimly perceived finagling, doctoring, and massaging are rampant, endemic, and unavoidable in a profession [science] that awards status and power for clean and unambiguous discovery»; «unconscious manipulation of data may be a scientific norm»; «scientists are human beings rooted in cultural contexts, not automatons directed toward external truth».

Stan himself readily admits that he doesn't know the answer in a scientific context, and he agrees that more study is needed.

DiChristina: Right and something I didn't mention before Steve, but which I think is important to mention here is, even in focusing on a single disease — and you're right, we don't typically do that, at Scientific American, we don't want to do «disease of the month» per se, although certainly we don't mean belittle the importance of, you know, these various diseases in people's lives, but at the broader context as well.

Science is unified; it is not possible to make use of scientific laws in one context, and then deny them in another.

LGBTQ - identified professionals surveyed by Queer in STEM are overwhelmingly open about their LGBTQ identities in personal contexts; but many are not «out» to their scientific colleagues or their students.

More than 60 per cent of Class 7 students can not make a scientific prediction related to the outcomes of a context involving the concept of camouflage in animals

It was important that he is comfortable with military and scientific jargon, as literal translations don't always convey the proper meaning in a military - science - fiction context.

In this context, it should be noted that, while carefully programmed, Riley's graphic patterns are not strictly derived from scientific calculation, and she refuses to differentiate between the physiological and psychological responses of the eye.

It addresses a range of issues, such as how statistics often is misused, how scientific progress is made in general, that the «scientific method» is not always as straightforward as one might like to think, the influence of stake - holders, the importance of knowing the context of the research, relationships between science and policy, and ploys designed to bypass logic.

I suppose in the abstract this would be dull as doornails if not unhelpful, and so probably it's best to explain it with examples and in the context of climate modeling, but I wanted to describe it in the abstract, just because I think what keeps a lot of people from appreciating climate science (or even why it's hard to appreciate) has to do with very basic ideas about not just «the scientific process» but with the narrower or perhaps more easily describable process of modeling.

Just to belabour the point; notice that my Jupiter prediction failed to take into account either the colour of the rocket's paint or the newly discovered earthlike planet around Alpha Centauri (or wherever) because my scientific judgement tells me that while this leaves me open to the criticism that my model is incomplete, I have good reason to believe that these things don't matter in the current context.

Thirdly, though we are trying to do something about it here, most journalists are not experienced enough in scientific topics to be able to place new results in context without outside help.

An equally important step is to place the areas of ongoing scientific dispute (hurricane strength, extinction impact, pace of sea - level rise) within the broader context of what is not in dispute (more CO2 emissions will heat the world, changing climate patterns and raising seas for centuries to come).

Since it is difficult to understand what exactly is meant by Holistic Management ® in this context, and there is no scientific literature that we are aware of that supports a significant net gain of soil carbon across environments in response to his method, we did not attempt to assess what a realistic global number might be.

My favorite line reflects on the importance of placing scientific debates on the edges of understanding in the context of established knowledge: «Disagreement about how to model the flight of a Frisbee correctly doesn't imply that basic aerodynamics are wrong.»

The entire usage of the word «denier» is indeed dogmatic because such a word can not be applied in scientific context when challening a theory (mechanism) which is attempting to explain climate events.

Clean code is always more reusable but in the current context, of scientific papers, all that matters is that the code does the current job correctly and is in a decent (not perfect) state, because it has been «refactored mercilessly» throughout.

More accurately, we can avoid the use of the ambiguous word «uncertain» (which takes on many different meanings depending on context, and most of them are not scientific in origin) by restating your example in the terms of «normal science».

But this goal can be accomplished only if policymakers consider the implications of the scientific dissent communicated to them and make rational decisions on the basis of it, and so far their track record in this context has not been exactly stellar.

You can not prove a negative in this context; though given your position on this subject, one can see where you get your «scientific methodology» from.

It is important that policymakers understand the historical context of the global warming debate, what the data does — and does not — tell us about global warming, where there is consensus in the scientific community and where there is not, and what impacts global warming regulations can realistically be expected to have on the environment.

They're presented in a way that's misleading, they're not given any actual scientific context, or they're outright wrong.

Such claims are usually made in the context of a campaign directed at the public or policy makers, as a way of trying to give scientific credibility to certain claims in the hope that a non-scientific audience will not know the difference.»

There is a growing concern that the methods ruling scientific publishing inherited from 19th century are not up to the task in the curent context.

I am not particularly interested in what appeared in the popular press or on TV and do not intend to discuss it here (but see context), since I do not regard these as reliable sources for scientific information.

«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.»

Perhaps Sir Paul is trying to justify the IPCC position by rephraseing the argument in the context of scientific papers since AR5 will be a «scientific paper», won't it...?

Even though it is not the main scope of our paper, we described the scientific context of polar bear ecology and explained how and why polar bears depend on their sea ice habitat (summarized in my previous blog post).

I guess I'd add that this is understandable, given that the denier camp really doesn't have much actual science to use as ammunition or to build their arguments on, and thus they tend to wage their campaign by cherrypicking data, or seeking to attack narrow and often out - of - context passages found in scientific papers or in simplified postings about those papers found on sites like Skeptical Science.

Recently, an article citing over 80 graphs from scientific papers published in 2017 — and another 55 graphs from 2016 — established that modern «global» warming is not actually global in scale, and that today's warmth is neither unprecedented or remarkable when considering the larger context of natural variability.

In the scientific context it means if it isn't this, then it is something else.

> [A] n adequate definition of confirmation will have to do justice to the way in which empirical hypotheses function in theorical scientific contexts such as explanations and predictions -LSB-...]

Hundreds Of Scientific Papers Challenge «Global» Warming Recently, an article citing over 80 graphs from scientific papers published in 2017 — and another 55 graphs from 2016 — established that modern «global» warming is not actually global in scale, and that today's warmth is neither unprecedented or remarkable when considering the larger context of natural vaScientific Papers Challenge «Global» Warming Recently, an article citing over 80 graphs from scientific papers published in 2017 — and another 55 graphs from 2016 — established that modern «global» warming is not actually global in scale, and that today's warmth is neither unprecedented or remarkable when considering the larger context of natural vascientific papers published in 2017 — and another 55 graphs from 2016 — established that modern «global» warming is not actually global in scale, and that today's warmth is neither unprecedented or remarkable when considering the larger context of natural variability.

This means that either the word «concensus» is meaningless in a scientific context, or your definition of «concensus» is not appropriate.

In this case the ability to specify a scientific topic where Michel could at least argue a concensus exists using his own definition would at least show that he himself thought that the word had a meaningful use in a scientific context and that this wasn't merely an excercise in rhetoriIn this case the ability to specify a scientific topic where Michel could at least argue a concensus exists using his own definition would at least show that he himself thought that the word had a meaningful use in a scientific context and that this wasn't merely an excercise in rhetoriin a scientific context and that this wasn't merely an excercise in rhetoriin rhetoric.

Externalities may be addressed by either a tax / credit or some other public policy, public ownership and management of the commons, or privatization of the commons, or through court actions — each option may have it's own costs — for example, the large - scale privatization of the climate system may be impractical with given technology (analogy with toll roads), and even without that, it has at least an aesthetic cost (nature is supposed to be nature; and psychologically, humans may benifit from some amount of public space) and perhaps scientific (ie nature — in this context, nature as it is with relatively small impacts of humankind — is not nature if it is not being itself) costs; there may be inefficiencies in the court system that could be bypassed for issues that are easily addressed with legislation (unless we had a class - action lawsuit on behalf of all people now until the year).

I don't know if the moderators will permit my previous «philosophical» comment which was verbosely critical of Objectivism, but in defense of Objectivism in the context of AGW denialism, it is my observation that the overwhelming majority of denialists who claim or appear to be «ideologically opposed to various scientific discoveries» are not operating on the basis of any such intellectual framework as Objectivism.

In scientific contexts, the denialist can deny a cause (carbon dioxide does not cause global warming), an effect (the Earth is not warming), the association between the two (CO2 levels are rising and the Earth is warming, but not because of the carbon dioxide), the direction of the cause - and - effect relationship (carbon dioxide concentrations are increasing because the earth is warming) or the identification of the cause - and - effect relationship (other factors than greenhouse gases are causing the Earth to warm).

Can you describe a context in which you think it is justifiable for a scientist, when he is informally reporting the result of a scientific study, to make little mention of doubts where making little mention of doubts is not required for any reason other than to influence policy?