Sentences with phrase «not much scientific evidence»

Ten years ago, there was not much scientific evidence behind the low - carbohydrate diet, however since 2003, there have been over 27 randomized, controlled, scientific human trials.

Though there's not much scientific evidence to prove that this blue light is actually harmful, there are still plenty of people who swear by the positive effects of reflective glasses.

However, with the exception of one study conducted in 1986 (Hunziger and Barr 1986), there isn't much scientific evidence to support the idea.

I did another few sessions over the coming weeks, and although there isn't much scientific evidence to prove its benefits, the salt certainly helped me personally.

It probably can't hurt to try those new tampons and pads promising to help «rebalance» vaginal pH, but know that there isn't much scientific evidence that they work.

However, with the exception of one study conducted in 1986 (Hunziger and Barr 1986), there isn't much scientific evidence to support the idea.

Not exact matches

You ignore actual scientific evidence, -------------------- Actually, SeaVik, the SCIENTIFIC evidence is that the Biblical Manuscript P72 that shows Peter's description of the divinity of Jesus flat out proves that it was not an invention of Constantine, since it was written as much as 150 years befscientific evidence, -------------------- Actually, SeaVik, the SCIENTIFIC evidence is that the Biblical Manuscript P72 that shows Peter's description of the divinity of Jesus flat out proves that it was not an invention of Constantine, since it was written as much as 150 years befSCIENTIFIC evidence is that the Biblical Manuscript P72 that shows Peter's description of the divinity of Jesus flat out proves that it was not an invention of Constantine, since it was written as much as 150 years before Nicea.

«Actually, SeaVik, the SCIENTIFIC evidence is that the Biblical Manuscript P72 that shows Peter's description of the divinity of Jesus flat out proves that it was not an invention of Constantine, since it was written as much as 150 years before Nicea.

There is much scientific evidence supporting that homosexuality as inherent and not choice.

So, in short, this «evidence» that proves Christianity isn't so much scientific evidence as it is idealistic / philosophical / rhetorical resonance that may or may not occur when an individual encounters the Christian idea of Jesus and the death / resurrection story.

It turns out there's not much solid scientific evidence about any of it, especially when it comes to whether or not you can feed your baby milk that's left in the bottle after a feeding.

Little do you know, their advice is based on their personal experiences rather than any scientific evidence because they haven't had much training in breastfeeding.

But much of the Republican Party has adopted an authoritarian approach that demands ideological conformity, even when contradicted by scientific evidence, and ostracizes those who do not conform.

Dr. Joel Fuhrman argues in Eat to Live that much of the scientific evidence is conflicting because we simply do not eat enough crucifers and other green leafy vegetables to experience their full range of health - promoting effects.

Many sources claim that taking cold showers is also a good thing for sensitive skin and hair, but there does not seem to be much scientific evidence for this.

They all promote a Whole Plant Food Based diet of one version or another — based on the body of scientific evidence (which you don't find so much with people who promote diets such as the paleo diet)..

Few foods, and certainly not dessert foods, have as much therapeutic potential as this «candy» aisle treat, as evidenced by a wide range of accumulating scientific research linking its consumption to over 40 distinct health benefits.

Oz and physicians like him think that there's so much to be gained by eating whole grains and fruits (we agree on the green vegetables, although I do so less because of any compelling scientific evidence than because my mother insisted they were good for me) that they think this should be recommended to anyone and everyone and a diet that restricts them can't possibly be healthful.

To give you a taste of what is coming in Part 2, the arguments can be summarized as: 1) Education does not lend itself to a single «best» approach, so the Gates effort to use science to discover best practices is unable to yield much productive fruit; 2) As a result, the Gates folks have mostly been falsely invoking science to advance practices and policies they prefer for which they have no scientific support; 3) Attempting to impose particular practices on the nation's education system is generating more political resistance than even the Gates Foundation can overcome, despite their focus on political influence and their devotion of significant resources to that effort; 4) The scale of the political effort required by the Gates strategy of imposing «best» practices is forcing Gates to expand its staffing to levels where it is being paralyzed by its own administrative bloat; and 5) The false invocation of science as a political tool to advance policies and practices not actually supported by scientific evidence is producing intellectual corruption among the staff and researchers associated with Gates, which will undermine their long - term credibility and influence.

Although there's not much proven scientific evidence that glucosamine is the be-all, end - all supplement for dogs with joint problems, there's a general consensus that it does help.

In as much as the bulk of the evidence relates to the output of GCMs, in a strictly scientific sense this H0: AGW hasn't been rejected on the evidence presented in the IPCC reports.

Third, the major impediment, I'm convinced, to constructive public engagement with climate science is not how much either side knows or understands scientific evidence of it.

If you are not willing to actually read the primary literature, work the math, and understand the scientific evidence, all your «skepticism» is just so much vacuous complaining.

A scientific consensus isn't formed by simple agreement between scientists, it's evidence based and very much dependent on repeatable experiment.

• There is much scientific and historical evidence that the reported recent warming in the Arctic is not unprecedented, for instance the 1920/30's are recorded to have been relatively warm as in this 2006 paper, and this newer paper is interesting if challenging, but there are still other similar papers and much widespread history of the Medieval Warm Period.

The problem is, bbd, we do not know based on empirical scientific evidence how much of the warming may have been a result of increased concentrations of human GHGs

It's not really about evidence so much, it's more about an actual scientific proof that humans are the main cause of the slight warming that has happened in this world over the last 100 years or so.

Pulling out theories that aren't supported by the evidence is not what a scientific report should care much about, for good reason.

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 also find that many of those who might be categorized in the identified groups on AGW are in that category not so much for their judgment on the scientific evidence but rather their grounding in the politics of the matter.

The bottom line from the new report from the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) is that the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) knew, but didn't highlight, the fact that the best available scientific evidence suggests that the earth's climate is much less sensitive to atmospheric carbon dioxide input than the climate models they relied upon to forecast future global warming portray.

The fact of the matter is that Japan's whaling activities are in all likelihood done in violation of the international ban against whaling (the scientific objection being pretty much ludicrous...); there's more and more evidence that cetaceans should probably be granted non-human person status, making killing them doubly wrong; and debate about whether Sea Shepherd's actions (which have proven quite effective in cutting the number of whales killed) are or are not permissible and are or are not truly in the spirit of non-violence which Watson and Sea Shepherd have publicly espoused will no doubt go on.

Cutting through much of his polemic, Inhofe's speech contains three lines of scientific argument which, according to him, provide «compelling new scientific evidence» that anthropogenic global warming is not threatening.

Teaching good science and scientific process to children is imperative (even if they don't then go into science) as the skills are invaluable in everyday life (evidenced by the fact that anyone with a mathematical, scientific or engineering degree can pretty much work in any field they want).

Implicit in the court's reasoning is the need for an indigenous community to scientifically and collectively quantify its FSC numbers, not merely through anecdotal evidence (e.g., how much fish a fisherman historically caught, and how much he or she may now catch), but through larger «scientific» studies that address FSC needs on a broader community level.

Most of the scientific evidence supports the idea that technology does not matter much in education.

In general, I would suggest not taking the matching programs too seriously on any dating website, because these algorithms are not supported by scientific evidence.5 A practical take - home message is that the match percentage you see with potential partners probably doesn't mean all that much — simply the perception that people are similar is enough to make you feel attracted, regardless of actual similarity.