Sentences with phrase «not valid science»

Under the scientific method, for example, the so - called «consensus» so strongly advocated by the Climate - Industrial Complex (CIC) should have absolutely no role in determining science — only results derived by using the scientific method, the basis for evaluating what is and is not valid science.

Not exact matches

This tells me that, there is no valid scientific explanation for the creation of the world because it wasn't created by science, but by the creator — God, the Alpha & the Omega.

@Liz — It seems like the argument you are making is valid but only from the perspective of either creating a high risk of complication / retardation which science has proven when children are born to closely related people, and the «Ick» factor of not wanting to imagine two siblings getting it on.

I thought intelligent design was just a summary statement of belief, not a valid testable science..

Science says it isn't valid.

Clearly history has shown that just because current science can't explain something the «God did it» explanation need not be valid.

Answer; You are correct, I thought more about the legality of the term «hate speech» that the LGBT community uses to science their opposition which some are valid but not all.

I seriously doubt you understand science or even basic math, since what you post is so easily shredded, they do not have valid math, nor any valid science, and misrepresent science and twist logic.

Theologians and scientists who do not wish to go this far have proposed two other models: a «separation» model of mutual respect between science and religion and a «dialogue and engagement» approach that says comparing the two fields is valid.

Science eventually proved those theories to be correct, but that doesn't mean that every crackpot theory is just as valid as any other because some of them were proved correct — that's stupid reasoning!!!

... There seemed to me to be an ethics of belief whose clear mandate was «Adjust your belief to the evidence,» and I could not see why, if this was valid for common sense and science, it should not be valid for religion also.6

This great psychological / science community can never and has never conducted a valid study to show how one chooses to act on their orientation is not impacted by their environment.

Or, to put it another way, is not mythology an essential element in human thought, and is it not therefore just as valid an approach to reality as, e.g. that of natural science?

The point he was making remains valid today: ours is an «age of science,» whether we like it or not.

ThinkForYourself, you babbled on about «Do you also not think that plate tectonics is valid science since you can't mash up South America and Africa in a lab?

Your model is not valid, that is why evolutionary science hasn't collapsed and gone away because of it.

Just because science doesn't consider perpetual motion a valid concept doesn't mean that they shut down all of physics..

With this conviction in mind, and thinking in particular of Wordsworth and Shelley, he is moved to ask: «Is it not possible that the standardized concepts of science are only valid within narrow limitations, perhaps too narrow for science itself?»

Eric G: You have not read The Science of the Soul so how can you say that the evidence is not valid.

Just because you don't understand the science doesn't mean it's not valid, or that it takes faith to believe the results.

Another GOP wannabe pandering to the far right by supporting the concept that science not not be believed or accepted unless it conforms with your personal beliefs, and that all belief - based views of science are equally valid.

Another GOP star pandering to the far right by supporting the concept that science need not be believed or accepted unless it conforms with your personal beliefs, and that all belief - based views of science are equally valid.

It doesn't mean science isn't valid in its own way, it is, and it doesn't mean we don't take responsibility for our own lives, we must.

I follow the science being done at CERN and am fascinated at how many theories are being proven valid, not to mention the amazing discoveries by the NASA Space Program.

I'm not sure of the science behind the benefits of breastfeeding at 13 months, but I will say that your child behaving «too much like a baby» may be a valid criticism.

Science suggests the gap between breastfeeding and formula feeding just isn't all that wide, but studies and statistics aside, there are personal and valid reasons for choosing formula over breastfeeding.

I don't really put too much stock in academic authority of people in social sciences until they talk about testable predictions like real scientists do; or at the very least deal with # s. Without that, they're just people who have opinions that are no more nor less valid than anyone who isn't an academic social scientist.

3) Your theory of science is appalling (all human endeavour is «made up» and this doesn't differentiate valid sociological from invalid sociological knowledge).

For many years, there have been claims that the forensic sciences are neither valid nor reliable and may not meet the admissibility standards established by the U.S. Supreme Court in its 1993 Daubert ruling.

«I'm not a science major, but I think (Soon's presentation) has got valid points, but also other scientists who disagree with him have valid points,» Sobecki said.

Science majors attending the MSU event didn't agree that Soon's points were particularly valid.

If all one is interested in is perusing a range of points of view, whether backed up by valid science or not, it's a reasonable source.

I'm thinking «we» are learning a lot in science about health, nutrition and disease and closing in on some good findings, but we are not there are extreme recommendations that fall outside of the obvious — like we eat too much sugar and processed food and chemicals is uncalled for and probably not valid.

Brad: The Weston Price Foundation is not a valid source of information for science - based nutrition.

If you're making a valid claim that is actually supported by science then you shouldn't have any need to be this deceptive.

love science, love science media,, lovesciencemedia, duana welch, relationship advice, love advice, dating advice, marriage advice Aw, thanks for the shout - out first of all And ya know, I think you have a very valid point — the phrase «separated but not divorced

I don't think the «Mystery Science Theater 3000» version of The Final Sacrifice stands up on its own two feet as a valid work of art.

Their performance on English math, English reading, or English science tests is not always valid.

When it is only a science, errors get made, and valid loans don't get made.

It is not correct, it is nothing more than clever school level debating tactics and sophistry, iow words faulty reasoining and nothnig nat all to do wit the hard science that we know is valid.»

Similarly, just because the CO2 theory is based on valid science, it may not correctly explain the cause of the recent warming.

Considering the involvement in the anti-global warming community of industry shills with a proven past involvement in industry funded conspiracies to cast doubt upon valid science (see e.g. «Merchants of Doubt» or http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/plagiarism.conspiracies.felonies.v1.0.pdf), not to mention the criminal break - in to CRU's email, I think the existence of a conspiracy against climate science is pretty well established.

Smalley's views are utterly at odds with Climate Depot's robotic propagation of any content — valid or not — as long as it casts doubt on science pointing to risks from human - driven climate change.

My last post said I would re-research and post responses to your quite valid questions and concerns, and you come back and complain that I've not completed the task yet, and you call me lazy because I believe that science advances so relying on old cites is foolish.

I think these are valid opinions, but they are not science, nor are they supported by science.

Raising valid questions about the science that regulations are based on is acceptable, but misrepresenting science to affect the political process is not.

So, although I don't want RealClimate to lose its focus on the science, I think it's perfectly valid to address the issue of persuasion, and provide readers with tools to help.

By adroitly combining valid information with culturally affirming meanings, these communications succeed in getting people to reflectively assess evidence that they might otherwise dismiss out of hand (btw, if your goal is not simply to get people to open - mindedly consider evidence using their own powers of reason — if you just want to make them believe something, who cares how — you are not a science communicator; you are a propagandist).

You are claiming the science isn't valid because: «Regarding peer reviewed scientific journals, these are edited (that is, controlled) by and written by academics, the overwhelming majority of whom are left wingers.

It's always amusing to read in the «skept - o - sphere,» the thousands and thousands and thousands of comments on the subject of whether there is a «consensus» and even more interestingly, precisely how big that «consensus» is, from people who say that the noting the existence of a «consensus» is not only a fallacious argument, but that in fact noting that there is a «consensus» is antithetical to the valid practice of science.