Sentences with phrase «picking of scientific»

This report is an example of the worst kind of cherry picking of scientific data.

Not exact matches

I do find it really interesting that from the view point of some religious followers even a single point they can pick as inconsistent with their stories invalidates the entire scientific method.

Those of you who say that taking the bible as a parable is picking and choosing might benefit from looking in the mirror (or a book on scientific history) and realize that most of the things you use rely on seeming contradictions with the bible.

He picked up this theme from Thomas Kühn's influential book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

In our generation there is danger and hope — danger that these noncognitive accouterments will lose their aesthetic harmony and hypnotic power when integrated with the basic prehensions of science, and be reverted into impotent and empty symbols, jarring, ugly, and without force in final satisfactions: hope that the power of Jesus as lure will reassert itself in an aesthetic context devoid of supernaturalism, a context such that (the language now picks up echoes of van Buren) the vision of Jesus, the free man, free from authority, free from fear, «free to give himself to others, whoever they were «1 — such that this vision in its earthly, human purity will lure our aims to a harmonious concrescence, integrating scientific insight and moral vision and producing a modern, intensely fulfilling human satisfaction.

The Church and Christians generally still smart from accusations levelled against our slow acceptance of Darwinian theory; one of the first toys that baby science threw out of the cot for us to pick up and since become one of the key tenets of the modern scientific «belief system».

Picking his way expertly through three centuries of scientific history, from Newton on gravity (the force that causes apples to fall and planets to stay in orbit is the same), through electricity and magnetism (aspects of a single reality), to the present search for a Grand Unified Theory, he argued that the coherence of the physical universe progressively uncovered by science points to a «unity principle» at its heart.

You can not isolate this one item from all the massively integrated whole that is the sum total of our scientific knowledge — you can't pick and choose!

Scientific studies have even shown it to be LESS harmful to the human body than both cigarettes and alcohol and those are items you can pick up at the store along with a gallon of milk.

Third, acknowledging that some of the blame for the biased and one - sided media reporting on head injuries rests with some members of the scientific community who issue one - sided press releases and feed cherry - picked results about their findings to selected members of the media, the authors look to a day when the «harsh division and polarization» in the research community (an almost inevitable byproduct, unfortunately, of the intense competition for grant money in Concussion, Inc.), gives way to greater collaboration among researchers and a more «cordial discourse» between scientists via letters and responses to journal editors and back - and - forth debates at large academic conferences.

When I finally did pick up a book on the topic I was affirmed by the scientific studies and the growing number of parents that support many of the decisions I've made.

I think it adds to the problem we have in our society of people picking and choosing what scientific results to «believe in».

In a scientific poll of the Conservative Party grassroots which we undertook last summer with the help of YouGov, we found that Boris Johnson was way out in front, with 38 % of first preferences — double the number given to Theresa May and a long way ahead of George Osborne who picked up just three per cent of them.

There isn't a good scientific body of evidence that someone could pick up their blood PFOA level and say «OK, well this means my risk for some health outcome is x, y or z,» and scientists can't provide that and this is one of the places where we'll have to say we don't know and there is uncertainty about that.»

(CNN)-- Virginia gubernatorial candidate Ken Cuccinelli picked a frenetic news day to announce he has given $ 18,000 to a Richmond - based charity in an attempt to allay criticism over gifts he received from the CEO of Star Scientific.

Many graduate students and postdocs are unaware of the transferable skills they pick up during their scientific training: identifying relevant problems, synthesizing information, understanding the difference between data and evidence, and drawing conclusions from evidence.

Steve: You talk in the book in the article in Scientific American Mind about the importance of asking the right question and picking the right system to examine that question with, and it seems like an obvious thing, but it's not.

These papers add to a growing body of information suggesting that widely used «objective» admissions measures, such as GRE test scores and GPA, are exactly the wrong way to go about picking future contributors to scientific progress.

Traditionally, individuals were left to pick these up on their own, but they may now take advantage of many excellent programs that focus on teaching them the skills of successful grant applications and scientific management.

News of the science consortium's 28 June letter to policymakers was picked up by dozens of media outlets, including the Associated Press, U.S. News & World Report, the Washington Post, Scientific American, The Independent, and many others.

We «randomly» picked four faculty members, trying carefully to select a variety of scientific expertise as well as differences in level of experience.

From an upbeat meditation on death to a snarky critique of economics, this year's picks offer delightfully unconventional perspectives on a range of scientific topics.

A carbon threshold breached, commitments to brain science made, mystery neutrinos found and human evolution revised — these and other events highlight the year in science and technology as picked by the editors of Scientific American

As the bubble rises, it picks up more and more of the balloon — there's still about 900 feet laid out on the tarp at this point — and begins to arc over the launch vehicle, a motorized crane that is holding the scientific payload about 10 feet off the ground.

In this episode, Scientific American senior writer Wayt Gibbs talks about what he learned at a major computer security conference, the RSA Conference 2006; physicist Mark Shegelski reveals some of the science secrets about the Olympic sport of curling; and frequent Scientific American contributor JR Minkel discusses a number of stories he picked up at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Scientists began organizing only 3 days after President Donald Trump took office, as alarm — sparked by a campaign that in many ways appeared to dismiss the contributions of scientific research — ignited over Senate hearings on controversial cabinet picks and mandates curtailing public communication from scientific agencies.

A panel of previous winners has picked 12 finalists in each of the broad scientific categories: biology, chemistry, physics, and the social sciences.

Scientific American editors Mark Fischetti, Dina Maron and Seth Fletcher talk about the info they picked up at the just - concluded annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Washington, D.C. Subjects covered include gravitational waves, whether there's really a war on science, the growing concern over Zika virus, sea level rise and advances in artificial intelligence.

Mark Lynas, a former anti-GMO activist who now considers GMO fears a «conspiracy theory,» notes that GMO opponents use the same rhetorical tactics beloved of climate deniers: cherry - picking evidence, emphasizing a few dissenting «experts» over the scientific consensus, and attempting to «capture and control the public - policy agenda to enforce its long - held prejudices.»

A team of microbiologists, systems biologists, infectious disease specialists and epidemiologists from across U-M has been picked to represent the university in STAT Madness, a virtual online tournament of scientific discoveries made in 2017.

That's right but I think in science «cherry - picking» is undistinguishable from «fraud» and mocks the concept of the scientific method.

In addition, I think it's very easy for people to be suckered in by this kind of diet because 1) bloggers cherry - pick certain scientific articles to make their case and 2) Weston Price Foundation has marketed this diet very effectively.

But when Thor picks a needless fight with his father's ancient enemy, the Frost Giants, Odin ragefully casts him out of Asgard and onto Earth, where the flaxen - haired behemoth lands in the middle of Portman's scientific expedition.

But I'm not ashamed to say that I picked up this book because I fell in love with the cover, with its scientific renderings of different types of birds.

Assemble your hand - picked Starbase crew and explore to gain the resources needed for Terran Republic's scientific research, exploration, and diplomatic efforts on the edge of known space.

They are not scientific issues of any sort, they are political issues for which people cherry pick information, stretch and break facts, and generally frame issues in the light that makes their favored political position look as favorable as possible.

For those who firmly believe that scientists are going full speed ahead to cherry - pick evidence that supports catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, Andy has provided the megaphone for the objective (and un-biased) voice of the scientific community as a whole.

«The public is obviously picking up on this not as an evolution of objective scientific understanding but as a proliferation of contradictory opinions.»

In short, the denialists sudden attempts to try to discredit the database outside of the scientific arena is nothing short of classic data cherry - picking.

Milloy's specious argument is a characteristic example for a method frequently employed by «climate skeptics»: from a host of scientific data, they cherry - pick one result out of context and present unwarranted conclusions, knowing that a lay audience will not easily recognise their fallacy.

I entirely share Nurse's disdain for the use of «scientific arguments that on the whole are rather weak and unconvincing, and nearly always involve the cherry - picking of data»: indeed, at Climate Audit, criticism of, for example, repetitive use of Graybill's strip bark bristlecone chronologies, ex post screening and use of contaminated upside - down Tiljander sediments, have been longstanding themes.

But it is the absence of a language in which to express humanism that can sometimes lead to «picking through the scientific evidence for cherries they can pick to support a pre-defined policy position.»

But what in fact appears to happen is that the concerns at least of some of those worried about these types of actions, have led them to try and convince society by attacking the science of the majority of climate scientists and to use scientific arguments that on the whole are rather weak and unconvincing, and nearly always involve the cherry - picking of data.

So although there will be lots of scientific talk about measurements requiring adjusted parameters and newly discovered feedbacks and whatnot to explain all the changes, underneath it all this is still just a bidding game where people pick numbers which are big enough to be alarming so they'll get funded, but not too big lest people start to laugh.

You can't have it both ways and cherry pick out of scientific papers, while also accusing others to cherry pick as well.

Warmest year, day or month is a political issue more than a scientific issue or they wouldn't be picking favored data sets or spending so much time trying to eke out hundredths of degrees.

These are attacks based on anti-regulatory, so called «free market» ideology, not legitimate scientific debate, using a wide range of dirty tricks: from faked science, attacks on scientists, fake credentials, cherry - picking scientific conclusions: a campaign based on the old tobacco industry mantra: «doubt is our product».

Their tactics and fallacies include ignoring or distorting mainstream scientific results, cherry - picking data and falsely generalizing, bringing up irrelevant red - herring arguments, demanding unachievable «precision» from mainstream science with the motif «if you don't understand this detail you don't understand anything», overemphasizing and mischaracterizing uncertainties in mainstream science, engaging in polemics and prosecutorial - lawyer Swift - Boat - like attacks on science - and lately even scientists, attacking the usual scientific process, misrepresenting legitimate scientific debate as «no consensus», and overemphasizing details of little significance.

Maybe you should read some more serious blogs about climate (RealClimate for example) and not the trash of the McIntyre & co that only like to pick at small things as they are not able to shoot down many years of solid scientific research.

IF I was to comprehensively assess, down to first principles and fundamental premises, the current scientific research on the: 1) Sun; 2) Earth - Atmospheric System; 3) Properties of the varying Space between them; and 4) their Orbital Dynamics... THEN I might say reasonably inconclusive wrt your three questions or might say reasonably conclusive to pick one.