Sentences with phrase «not pseudoscience»

Inspecting various simple correlations between two variables linked via strong physical and theoretical evidence is not pseudoscience.

These are the issues I wish we would focus on and not the pseudoscience or junk science that is the «pablum» being increasingly fed to physicians and patients.

Sure enough, this is not any pseudoscience, but how hops herbs estrogen reaches the beer is actually examined, and studies confirm that beer contains phyto - oestrogens.

We have to ensure that science is being taught in schools — not pseudoscience.

«We need science, not pseudoscience,» he said.

Not exact matches

If one does not have an adequate understanding, it might be difficult to distinguish between science and pseudoscience.

You can't blame a science agency for canning some clown that disavows real science and spews pseudoscience nonsense instead.

Not until the 1980s and»90s did archival research by biographers and analysis by philosophers of science uncover the manipulations of evidence, exploitation of patients and artful pseudoscience that were built into Freud's theoretical edifice.

Whether Darwinism is another example of pseudoscience is the question, and this question can not be answered by a vague appeal to the authority of science.

Please understand though, I have my reasons for not connecting with pseudoscience, but I can share some very interesting info on actual case studies and technological breakthroughs.

In most case they are not able to recognize real scientific evidence from pseudoscience themselves, despite their scientific degrees.

Could it be that maybe... just maybe... there is something driving women to homebirth that isn't just «pseudoscience» and «woo» but actually based on a very real problem with our healthcare system that continues to go largely unaddressed.

Pseudoscience, however, does not change as the facts and understanding change.

We do not believe the Government's robust policy against the teaching of pseudoscience is consistent with funding schools that have so much pseudoscience in their curriculum and their health policies.

In 2012 the Government precluded all future Free Schools (i.e. those not already open) from teaching pseudoscience as science and required them to teach evolution, as well as requiring them to promote British values.

Coupled with the issues we have seen with the Steiner Academy Hereford teaching pseudoscience, providing homeopathy for pupils and opting out of offering vaccinations, we do not think that Steiner schools should be state - funded.

The Hereford Academy does not have to follow the rule which applies to Free Schools against teaching pseudoscience in any subject, which was brought in to prevent the teaching of creationism.

How can we make intelligent decisions about our lives if we don't understand the difference between the myths of pseudoscience and the testable hypotheses of science?

When people don't like what science tells them, they resort to conspiracy theories, mud - slinging and plausible pseudoscience — as Einstein discovered

I call creationism «pseudoscience» not because its proponents are doing bad science — they are not doing science at all — but because they threaten science education in America, they breach the wall separating church and state, and they confuse the public about the nature of evolutionary theory and how science is conducted.

If not, chances are it is pseudoscience.

Dara O'Briain tells Helen Thomson how he went from the big bang to the big stage, and why he just can't stand pseudoscience.

Buss is happy to distance himself from Ley's world view and his reminiscences of the intellectual climate and rise of pseudoscience in Nazi Germany, but he doesn't offer the reader enough historical context to understand how those views might have taken hold.

Back in the day, the two argue, alchemy was not the misguided pseudoscience that most people think it was.

While he doesn't dispute that some candidates believe they reap the benefits, the expert in pseudoscience does attribute benefits to a placebo effect.

I don't spend much time on «pseudoscience» especially if it is making a profit for folks at the expense of other folks health.

RED LIGHTS is a thriller about preconceived notions, science versus pseudoscience, and what may or may not be a fake lip piercing as it goes about peeking behind the curtain of illusion that masks reality.

I've written a lot about dogs and dominance and my take on this topic hasn't changed at all, namely, dogs display dominance but dominance should not be used in training / teaching dogs to coexist with us or with other dogs [please see «Social Dominance is not a Myth,» «Dominance and Pseudoscience: Making Sense of Nonsense,» renowned primatologist Dr. Dario Maestripieri's outstanding essay called «Social Dominance Explained: Part I» (in which he mildly takes me to task for trying to accommodate the deniers), and many links therein.]

Besides the isolationist stand of the Party (I quit in 1990 when they came out against Desert Storm), they don't recognize that externalities even exist — and that takes them firmly into the realm of pseudoscience.

and he's not about to allow his journalistic career to be hoisted on a petard of politically driven pseudoscience.

Your wish to collect energy when you are emitting more than your are receiving is as bonkers as your pseudoscience claims, rather like your claims that over 150 years of established science based on empirical validations is wrong — and all because you do not understand the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Amazing that you are so committed to your false pseudoscience climate cult religion that you can't even cite a single peer reviewed paper that empirically supports it that you are willing to discredit and make a total fool of yourself.

So if the atmosphere radiated more energy towards the surface would that not mean, according to your pseudoscience, that the surface radiated less energy to space.

«Strange that not a single one agrees with your pseudoscience.»

Not even the alarmist peddlers of the CO2 pseudoscience claims that climate warming prior to ~ 1950 was primarily due to humans.

That is not a bad thing if you can deduce the potential fallacy from your pseudoscience website.

Your fantasy pseudoscience is exposed as false because you are unable to answer this question that you continually dodge: If those 333W / m ² of backradiation are a real transfer of thermal energy, then why can't you collect it like you can collect the 161W / m ² of solar radiation?»

So, how would increasing the CO2 concentration not reduce what is radiated from the surface according to your pseudoscience?

That you can not comprehend that his post is pseudoscience is exactly the reason why you posted a link to it thinking it was worthy science.

It seems both Roald and his pseudoscience blog do not understand the difference between the aenergy received from the Sun (cross sectional area of the globe, a circle) and the distribution of that energy across the globe, (a sphere with 4 times the surface area).

Sorry, but repeating your climate cult propaganda which only makes empirical evidence - free CLAIMS and does NOT include any empirical data supporting your pseudoscience only further exposes you as a fanatical, scientifically illiterate duped climate cult zealot.

Crichton is largely wrong about how science makes progress (but Lakatos, while improving on Popper's description of how science progresses, hardly proved him wrong about what * is * scientific), but he surely isn't wrong to suggest that scientific faddism is as prevalent as pseudoscience.

But I don't think that qualifies as «pseudoscience,» which to me suggests such things as controversial hypotheses masquerading as self - evident assumptions («ordered complexity implies a designer»), or outright fallacies of inference and errors of fact, perhaps hidden behind familar jargon («in information - theoretic terms, evolution of the eye is impossible»), or cleverly disguised as well - established results from other sciences («quantum electrodynamics suggests that consciousness is the fundamental nature of reality, and so we don't need to age, and crime will be reduced if we meditate on it correctly»).

Really, this statement is so absurdly wrong that it doesn't even qualify as pseudoscience, but as science fiction.

It is not particularly surprising that they could not find one to argue against the reality of carbon emissions - driven global warming, but it still seems a bit of an unfair difference in stature to have the position backed up by corporate - sponsored pseudoscience be represented by a member of Congress, against a man known primarily for shouting «science!»

AGW is pseudoscience invented as a vehicle to push pre-agreed policies, not the reverse, and we know that you know that we know that.

The essential difference is that science only explains some things and that its hypotheses forbid others, while a theory that is not refutable by any conceivable event â $» i.e., one that is universally and comprehensively explanatory â $» is pseudoscience...

If so, why not modernize the law to recognize that undermining trust in science is a crime against civilization itself and that pseudoscience cults are therefore inimici humani generis?

«I do not know», seem to unspeakable words inside this pseudoscience.

Astrology is a pseudoscience that has not demonstrated its effectiveness in controlled studies and has no scientific validity.