Sentences with phrase «questions in a scientific way»

Though final answers are still along way off, it is significant that we can now begin to frame such questions in a scientific way.

Not exact matches

A more scientific way to respond to this question is to look at historical returns and see what blends of U.S. and international stocks result in the lowest historical risk.

As I have stated throughout this book, it is neither possible nor desirable to respond to the question of nature's purpose in a purely scientific way.

This understanding of the limited scope of scientific method had been generally accepted since Kant's Critique of Pure Reason (1781); but in nineteenth - century evolutionary parlance it took on the specific meaning that «all beginnings and endings are lost in mystery,» a phrase that became commonplace in the sciences and social sciences as a way of dismissing or circumventing probing questions that sought to assess the larger implications or consequences of scientific analysis.

People have irrationally questioned her scientific credentials because of an opinion she has that in no way opposes scientific data.

An idea that answers the question we do not have real scientific answers for by finding an idea that fits all the observable criterian in a meaningful and consistant way?

In that way it is possible to answer the question whether a conflict between a theological and a scientific account of man is even really particularly likely.

Palmer always uses the term «objective» to describe the antagonistic posture of the isolated, active knower who seeks, for purposes of manipulation and control, to grasp, through the scientific method, the passive objects of the world in such a way that the knowledge that results «will reflect the nature of the objects in question rather than the knower's whims.»

It should be evident by now that our question about purpose in nature is one way of raising the problem of the intelligibility and validity of religious discourse in a scientific age.

I asked you a question about when a scientist should give up looking for any possibility among a near infinity of possibilities left to explore, and state something that isn't scientific or helpful in any way (the «goddidit») reply..

Because you can't prove there is a god, not in any sort of testable scientific way, especially when all of your questions are answered with «because god did it that way» or «thats how god wanted it».

I'm a Christian and I'd like to know who God is (a personal God to me) and to do that I need to question the things in the Bible and keep searching for answers both in spritual and scientific / historical ways.

«Moreover, we are concerned that establishing a practice of aggressive inquiry into the professional histories of scientists whose findings may bear on policy in ways that some find unpalatable could well have a chilling effect on the willingness of scientists to conduct research that intersects with policy - relevant scientific questions.»

Dinosaurs» reproductive strategies, and in particular the way they incubated their eggs, still raise numerous scientific questions.

In a myriad of ways and from a dozen perspectives, it asks vital questions about scientific authority and the endpoint of anti-intellectualism.

This research, which can be read in Scientific Reports, completely calls into question the scientific theories regarding these phenomena, founded on the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, and paves the way for a new vision of Earth's climatScientific Reports, completely calls into question the scientific theories regarding these phenomena, founded on the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, and paves the way for a new vision of Earth's climatscientific theories regarding these phenomena, founded on the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, and paves the way for a new vision of Earth's climate history.

«Given this complete absence of interest in a space now approaching 3 years, I think it's fair to say the scientific community has come up with other ways to answer the kinds of questions they used to ask with chimpanzees,» Collins tells Science.

In this episode, Scientific American writer Gary Stix talks about the ingenious way researcher Floyd Romesberg is attacking the problem of antibiotic resistance; award - winning journalist Joel Shurkin discusses his new biography of controversial physics Nobel Laureate William Shockley; and genomics researcher Steven Salzberg raises questions about the way flu data is currently shared and disseminated among scientists and the effects on public health.

In pursuit of scientific questions big and small, the United States invested in basic research in the wake of World War II, an effort that was «foundational to the American way of life,» Gates saiIn pursuit of scientific questions big and small, the United States invested in basic research in the wake of World War II, an effort that was «foundational to the American way of life,» Gates saiin basic research in the wake of World War II, an effort that was «foundational to the American way of life,» Gates saiin the wake of World War II, an effort that was «foundational to the American way of life,» Gates said.

It's just amazing that, you know, you could capture that much information and it's interesting in the scientific perspective because what we are finding right now with issues like climate change and conservation is that we really need fine - grained samples from very large geographic areas to really understand the dynamics of species range movements and how fragmentation is occurring and many biogeographic questions, and literally, the only way we can do this is through voluntary networks like this because it would cost billions and billions to send professionals out at that finer scale to understand it.

A scientific journal is looking into a study done at the center because a former directorhas questioned its integrity, saying that he believes that many of the monkeys included in the research were treated in an inhumane way.

The Institute: brings together a wide range of scientists, including physicists, engineers, chemists, biologists as well as HMS clinicians to address fundamental questions about the behavior and functioning of biological systems; allows biologists, engineers, and clinicians to potentially use such knowledge to foster applications and new technologies; and provides a way for the tool - developers (physicists, engineers, computer scientists) to work with the tool - users (biologists, chemists, clinicians) in the early stages of scientific inquiry and encourage scientific collaboration at the innovation stage of tool development.

«This is a detailed investigation of the pronuclear transfer (PNT) technique as a way to avoid transmission of mitochondrial disease, where the authors have addressed questions posed by the HFEA's Scientific Panel in their last Report in 2014.

We all know water benefits the human body in ways that nothing else can, but after people never having a good, scientific answer to this question, you have to wonder about it and discover how your body reacts.

By Lisa Guisbond Growth models are pitched as a thoroughly modern, scientific way to answer the age - old parental question: «What did you learn in school this year, my dear?»

Inquiry is an approach to learning that involves exploring the natural or material world in a way that leads to asking questions, making observations, planning investigations to develop explanations, rigorously testing those explanations, and discussing and debating results with others — all in the service of coming to a deeper understanding of scientific phenomena and scientific practices.

Researchers haven't yet found a way to conclusively answer these questions, but there is a body of work in the scientific literature that sheds some light on them.

The exhibit raises questions about regenerative medicine, DNA manipulation, and scientific antibody research, and features an artificially - engineered antibody that bears the name «Lynn Hershman» in its molecular structure, providing a glimpse into the groundbreaking ways in which natural and artificial life are increasingly dissolving in the age of synthetic technology.

The way out of this trap, if indeed you wish to be relevant to decision makers is not to engage in a futile attempt to enforce some degree of scientific accuracy as you see it (good luck with that), but instead to weigh in on the political questions — OK, Saunders has her science wrong, so what?

The scientific question is when will the Arctic be free of ice (not whether, although it's possible that it will not be — if human activities change in a way not reflected in any of the models).

Or to put this another way, in many cases the question of costs vs. benefits is a scientific question.

So, indeed, get the text, and then maybe also write something about how this book has really gone off in a biased way here — putting in personal interpretations rather than helping students gain insight into how to approach challenging scientific questions (maybe also cover how the IPCC experience grew out of the CFC - ozone experience and how the Montreal Protocol has worked, etc..

Those who have chosen careers in science and technology understand all too well that the scientific method itself is being called into question as a valid way to understand the world around us.

Whether or not Mann's work shows all that he has claimed is not the question, for the First Amendment protects robust discussion and debate of scientific matters and the freedom to express wrong - headed opinions in inartful ways.

Thus the question is designed to bring attention to the ethical duty of those who are engaged in risky behavior to produce credible scientific evidence that demonstrates with relatively high levels of proof that their behavior is not causing harm if they choose to persist in behaving in a way that might be dangerous.

The part where I disagree with Hulme is where he argues that showing the existence of a scientific consensus on the above (it is warming; it's due to us; it's bad news) somehow stands in the way of getting society to discuss that most important question.

The third shocking revelation of these documents is the ruthless way in which these academics have been determined to silence any expert questioning of the findings they have arrived at by such dubious methods — not just by refusing to disclose their basic data but by discrediting and freezing out any scientific journal which dares to publish their critics» work.

nobody is claiming that the existence of a consensus on a scientific question is in any way proof that the mainstream position is correct, that is a straw man.

The plot as such looks to me like an interesting scientific question (influence of CO2) coincided with a period of natural warming to create a political jihad that, like Communism before it, renounces market and natural forces in favor of central planning and autocratic control, to in some way save us from ourselves even if we have to destroy civilization to do it.