Sentences with phrase «on basic science if»

Laypeople like me need to bone up on basic science if we're going to be responsible citizens.

Not exact matches

If the Universe is still excelerating in it's expansion which it shouldn't be based on Big Dirt Ball theory then we know that even science's most basic assumptions in question.

If the Universe is still excelerating in it's expansion which it shouldn't be based on Big Dirt Ball theory then we know that even science's most basic assumptions are in question.

If we are right, then we lived our lives to their fullest in intellectual honesty, without the fear of some tyrant getting their hands on us after we die, and without having taken some stupid stand against the validity of sound science, or basic human rights.

I don't mean high school, I don't mean science magazines, I don't mean recreational literature like Richard Dawkins books, I mean if you actually ever sit dow for a few months, got the basic bibliography on its history, gathered the basic bibliography on the astrophysics and cosmology its based, and understood where it came from and what problem it proposes to solve?

These conditions can be largely met if technology is built primarily on natural human and renewable local resources, if it can be linked to traditional skills, crafts and techniques, and if it is geared to production that will meet the basic needs of the poor» (Faith Science and the Future.

In the scientific workplace, gossip may be especially risky, because gossip is almost always based on unverified information, which goes against the grain of basic scientific principles if not necessarily the science - workplace culture.

He was the first president since John F. Kennedy to do that, and if you read that speech, which is still on the web I believe — both at the Academy web site and my friend Ralph Cicerone, president of the National Academy of Sciences, is in the front row — and it's also on the White House web site — what you will find is although the president was clear about the practical applications of science and technology to our great challenges as I've mentioned, he probably spent two thirds of that talk talking about the importance of basic science; the importance of fundamental research in science and technology to our national well - being; and the importance of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education.

And I'll tell you right up front - these principles are NOT rocket science... these are the basic things you SHOULD be doing if you want to gain mass, yet I see plenty of people only doing one or two of them and wondering why they can't put on any mass!

For example, in addition to information on achievement (which must include more than test score data), the public needs to know if schools lack basics like well - equipped and staffed libraries, art supplies and science labs, and clean bathrooms.

«If there is going to be inclusive economic development across the world, attention must focus on school quality and having all students achieve basic skills,» wrote Eric Hanushek, a Stanford economist, in a new study published in Science magazine.

If one does climate science, one has to be up on all the contributing disciplines at least to the extent that one knows the basics, the real experts, and could at least review a paper for general interest in the field.

Given that the writers are on strike anyhow (but even if they weren't), perhaps the TV media should give us a «time out» from their normal entertainments and cover basic statistics, risk assessment, climate science, and related matters for the public good?

In short: I suggest getting a handle on the physical basics, and linking people to sites like Skeptical Science if they insist on arguing.

The basic conclusion seems to be that if the U.S. continues on its current science policy trajectory, in a few years we'll all know a lot more about what it is like to live in a Third World country.

Another, of course, is that the science illuminating the extent of the human influence on climate is not «settled» for many specific, and important, points, even though the basic case for rising risks from rising concentrations of greenhouse gases is robust enough to merit a strong response, according to a host of experts (even if you take the intergovernmental panel's findings with a grain of salt).

Finally, this all points to another reality — that if you care about blunting the buildup of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, you'd better start hoping for a lot more basic science on how to capture that gas cheaply and stash it away for safekeeping.

John Carter August 8, 2014 at 12:58 am chooses to state his position on the greenhouse effect in the following 134 word sentence: «But given the [1] basics of the greenhouse effect, the fact that with just a very small percentage of greenhouse gas molecules in the air this effect keeps the earth about 55 - 60 degrees warmer than it would otherwise be, and the fact that through easily recognizable if [2] inadvertent growing patterns we have at this point probably at least [3] doubled the total collective amount in heat absorption and re-radiation capacity of long lived atmospheric greenhouse gases (nearly doubling total that of the [4] leading one, carbon dioxide, in the modern era), to [5] levels not collectively seen on earth in several million years — levels that well predated the present ice age and extensive earth surface ice conditions — it goes [6] against basic physics and basic geologic science to not be «predisposed» to the idea that this would ultimately impact climate.»

If your basic claim is «the highest quality scientific evidence we have says we must take X action'then you have to throw anyone on your side that does «sloppy work» or makes statements that are only «weakly» supported by «the highest quality science» under the bus.

However, if you read many of the posts here or indeed essays on sites like WUWT it is very clear that the basic science is not understood and many points made which we both know are simply wrong.

Obviously, climatology is an incomplete science but we can all agree the basics as a new starting point to build on — Climatology II, if you will.

I'll grant that detailed material such as climate science is beyond the scope of politicians, bloggers and most college students, but when it comes to elemental accusations of corruption, people ranging from the President of the United States on down to college professors, bloggers and students like the one I feature here can undertake basic due diligence to see if the «industry - corrupted skeptic climate scientists» accusation is above reproach.

If we can't concede something so basic and fundamental to science (you do not, under any circumstances, publish a graph that is knowingly in error) then how are we possibly going to trust those same principles with things that aren't nearly as cut and dry (oh say things like the use of «novel» statistics to overstate one's case on previous temperatures or «novel» statistics that spread warming from one side of the Antarctic to the other)?

If you can't see that, i suggest you take some very basic science classes at the local community college rather than jabber on about scepticism and hackles and the like.

If the graduate decided against law school, he or she would nevertheless leave college with a solid introductory education on the basics of the law, which combined with a business, computer science, or another degree would provide an excellent undergraduate education.