Sentences with phrase «other than scientists»

There's nothing in the snippits of the reports which I have time to read which indicates anything other than the scientists accomodated all reasonable requests for data and process as best they could.

Does the natural world get a spokesperson other than the scientists who study them?

If anybody other than scientists move to Mars, they will make a mess of Mars and cause the Mars colony to die as well.

Of course, I would imagine some of these are quite rare and not many people have actually seen other than scientists and those who study dogs.

Not exact matches

Or in other words, rather than assume that walking while thinking splits your mental and physical resources, leaving less to devote to each, the scientists actually found «an increase in arousal or activation associated with physical activity... which then can be invested into the cognition,» according to the paper reporting the research.

Globally, we spend more than $ 100 billion on bottled water, which according to the Mayo Clinic and dozens of other scientists and public health experts is nutritionally equivalent (if not superior) to tap.

It comes down to what every scientist knows too well — analyzing data collected by different methods, and at different times, is a tricky business because some methods of collecting ocean surface temperatures are more accurate than others.

Effective programs — the kind found on the National Registry — are usually created by psychologists and other social scientists who are better at research than marketing their efforts.

Cognitive scientists have known for more than a century that the best way to secure memories for the long term is to impart them in repeated sessions, distributed across time, with other material interleaved in between.

Other than Post, only a handful of scientists are working on lab - grown meat; others believe the future lies in plant - based substitutes, ones so good they could fool even the most discerning palate, although Post maintains that we humans will always have an appetite for the real thing.

According to the St. Petersburg Times, «Livingston, 68, has been studying the Fenholloway for 35 years, longer than any other scientist.

GFI reports that as their scientists investigate further, they have become more optimistic — because clean meat is so much more efficient than animal - based meat.102 One of their senior scientists, Dr. Liz Specht, has met with venture capital firms and other venture investors to present technology plans of specific clean meat companies and their pathways to commercialization.103 GFI further reports that, based partly on her analysis, many leading venture capital investors and firms have become much more interested in clean meat companies.

I'm just saying that if some scientists believe in one pholosophy, and disagree with others who believe in a different philosophy doesn't mean anything other than a difference in beliefs.

Science may never meet God, but the intelligent scientists are the ones who will find the truth sooner than others.

In advancing these theories they disregard factors universally admitted by all scientists — that in the initial period of the «birth» of the universe, conditions of temperature, atmospheric pressure, radioactivity, and a host of other catalytic factors were totally different than those existing presently, including the fact that we don't know how single atoms or their components would bind and consolidate, which involved totally unknown processes and variables, as single atoms behave far differently than conglomerations of atoms.

If you did, and you don't come back with it being anything other than unproven, then you are not a scientist.

This can not be argued and no scientist will ever support scientism other than a philosophical application or non falsifiable extrapolation of a valid scientific principal or theory.

This guy wasn't even a research scientist or physicist, so why his opinion would count as anything other than the misinformed blathering of a scientist wannabe is beyond any of us.

About 59 years later, Darwin published his theory and other than a bit of a rough start, scientists (other than those half dozen) have not looked back.

Lawrence Krauss, Stephen Hawking and other real scientists provide a far more likely explanation than The Babble.

I just think a lot of us scientists have a different understanding of religion than others.

If I had to pick one Doctor, I'd say he's almost more like the Ninth Doctor perhaps than any other but with a bit of that Third Doctor disinterested scientist thing going on.

It is blatantly clear why scientists employed by the tobacco industry arrive at quite different conclusions on the relation of smoking and cancer than do others.

It isn't true that scientists are trying to change the beliefs of others, but rather they are observing and testing natural phenomena with tomes of evidence telling the rational person that the notion of a deity as a NATURAL being rather than SUPERNATURAL one is absurd and silly.

It also confirms more than any other evidence that the universe had a beginning and expanded at a rate faster than the speed of light within less than a trillion of a trillion of a trillion of a second — less than 10 ^ -35 of a second — of the Big Bang by detecting the miniscule «light polarizations» called B - Modes caused by the Gravitational Waves — which were theorized in 1916 by Albert Einstein in his Theory of General Relativity but never detected before — of the Inflation of the Big Bang which are embedded in the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation — CMB or CMBR that was discovered by American scientists back in 1964.

Christian Scientists who oppose the use of conventional medicine could refuse to cover their employees for anything other than Christian Science treatments.

He was raised in a world that had a higher belief in creationism than exists today so to did all the other «Scientists» of modern times.

In other word, there is more believe in God amongst scientists than generally perceived!

I'm not a scientist or anything and I admit to him knowing tenfold more than I do, yet while I do not follow word - for - word creationalism sounds to me that HE is the one ignoring other facts that some may believe in.

Here's the quote re Einstein's belief: In 2007, in an interview with Benjamin Wiker, Flew said again that his deism was the result of his «growing empathy with the insight of Einstein and other noted scientists that there had to be an Intelligence behind the integrated complexity of the physical Universe» and «my own insight that the integrated complexity of life itself — which is far more complex than the physical Universe — can only be explained in terms of an Intelligent Source.»

Bill, Christian scientists have done just fine and what we need more than anything in our children... is Godliness — integrity, honesty, character, kindness, empathy, compassion, humility... way more important than any other accomplishment!!!

This discovery is superior to the current redshift — hence the Doppler Effect — approach of detecting the expansion of the universe, since some scientists speculate that other unknown reasons can cause the redshift while Gravitational Waves are unique to the Inflation of the Universe — expansion at faster than the speed of light at the beginning.

In contrast to these larger than life themes, Elizabeth and her fellow scientist Charlie Holloway (Logan Marshall - Green) demonstrate a personal love for each other.

How often do most people other than architects and rocket scientists need to make such a calculation in real life?

This assertion is not meant to imply that religion is either false or ultimately nothing more than the fabrication of human minds — indeed, Berger argues in other writings that the transcendent seems to break through humanly constructed worlds, as it were, from the outside, However, the social scientist must recognize the degree to which religion, like all symbol systems, involves human activity.

Also, as a scientist I follow many areas of the scinces other than my own - medical research.

The survey did find that factors other than perception of stigma also deterred childbearing, such as long hours, particularly for research scientists running labs and applying for grants, and the difficulty of finding affordable and reliable childcare.

He would like to trust the scientists to create a brave new world; but though he trusts them more than others, he is not sure they are equal to it.

A large part of the difference between scientists and the general population may be due more to religious upbringing, rather than scientific training or university pressure to be irreligious, although these other possibilities should be further explored.»

We must then allow a place in our picture of the universe for categories not reducible to those of science, and must preserve a role among the functions of the mind for other methods than those of the scientist.

Furthermore, Christian Scientists read their Bibles, I suspect, with more regularity than most other Protestants.

More of a scientist than any other human on Earth.

Our Sun is one star out of about 200 billion stars that make up our Milkyway Galaxy which is no more or less special than any other galaxy scientists have discovered hurling through a vast unimaginably large expanse of space that we call the Universe (which is about 99 % empty space by the way).

They are much smaller, dimmer and cooler than stars like our Sun, and for a long time scientists searching for life on other worlds paid little attention to them; the general feeling was that they gave out so little heat and light, compared with the Sun, that they were unlikely to host habitable planets.

These scientist, and doctors, can not remake skin, bone, eyes, brains, oval eggs, sperm, none of the sort, so they have no real answer to create a life other than how procreation works, where again what, and how is the very first man, or woman, animal, other creatures, either in the sea, or creeping on this earth was originally created from, as where did they first come from?

Dawkins, Krauss, Hawking, etc. develop theories and explanations and expose their theories to other scientists and the public for rigorous review, unlike religion which is no better than unproven myth and astrology.

If there was, than real scientists would be refining and honing that method and religionists would not need to manipulate others into belief with promises of salvation, threats of hell, and tsk - tsking of those who don't show respect for the insanity.

While ordinary theologians can not conceive that ontological truth would be accessible in forms other than metaphor, myth and symbol, scientist - theologians tend to be dissatisfied with anything less than relatively straightforward concepts that can claim truth.

Give scientists credit for bringing understand where before there was nothing but stories, some more intriguing than others, but all just stories.

I don't think we should restrict scientists (within the bounds of common morality) if they want to hypothesize on something other than the commonly taught ideas of science.