Sentences with phrase «real nature of science»

The girls in my study recalled a few discrete nature study activities and pseudo-science fair projects that did not transmit the real nature of science.

Not exact matches

But before expressing this belief, Fr Holloway makes a general remark about the nature of scientific knowledge which may serve as an introduction to Polanyi's refutation of Scientific Positivism and his proposal that science is Personal Knowledge: «It is most significant that here, as so very often in the discoveries of science, it was not the inductive data which was the real beginning of the breakthrough in knowledge, but a deductive vision glimpsed through scanty data which thrilled and excited the mind... from then on the hunt is up for the clues and the final proof.»

It's really sad how ateistic people can be so boring and blind... The real enemy of spirituallity (you may call religion, if you want), is not the SCIENCE (which have its own creed that nature ends in itself) but the DOUBT.

In fact, «the more the elementary particle physicists tell us about the nature of the fundamental laws, the less relevance they seem to have to the very real problems of the rest of science, much less of society.»

We are passing through a great cultural change in which the idea, long dominant in science, that chance is «only a word for our ignorance of causes» is being replaced by the view that the real laws of nature are probabilistic and allow for aspects of genuine chance.

* Food Is Your Best Medicine by Henry Bieler * The Whole Soy Story: The Dark Side of America's Favorite Health Food by Kaala Daniel * Know Your Fats: The Complete Primer for Understanding the Nutrition of Fats, Oils and Cholesterol by Mary Enig, PhD * Nourishing Traditions: The Cookbook that Challenges Politically Correct Nutrition and the Diet Dictocrats by Sally Fallon and Mary Enig, PhD * Eat Fat, Lose Fat: The Healthy Alternative to Trans Fats by Sally Fallon and Mary Enig, PhD * The Body Ecology Diet: Recovering Your Health and Rebuilding Your Immunity by Donna Gates * Nutrition and Physical Degeneration by Weston Price * Real Food: What to Eat and Why by Nina Planck * Full Moon Feast: Food and the Hunger for Connection by Jessica Prentice * The Diet Cure by Julia Ross * The Cholesterol Myths: Exposing the Fallacy That Saturated Fat and Cholesterol Cause Heart Disease by Uffe Ravnskov * Traditional Foods Are Your Best Medicine: Improving Health and Longevity with Native Nutrition by Ron Schmid, ND * The Untold Story of Milk, Revised and Updated: The History, Politics and Science of Nature's Perfect Food: Raw Milk from Pasture - Fed Cows by Ron Schmid, ND * The Schwarzbein Principle: The Truth About Losing Weight, Being Healthy, and Feeling Younger by Diana Schwarzbein, MD

The Baby Einstein story is one of those inspiring stories of a young mother who wanted to be able to share a world of discovery with her baby - exposing her to the surrounding world by using real - world objects, music, art, language, science, poetry and nature in enriching, engaging, and playful ways.

«That's a difficult one,» according to Nancy Lane, who moderated the Nature discussion, because real change depends on adequate funding, and this in turn depends on the government fully recognising the value of science and the economic consequences of the huge wastage rate among women scientists.

It increases the velocity of science in Antarctica if they are able to send data from all kinds of different experiments in real time, versus the episodic nature they have now.»

I studied to be a dietitian in college and found it to be too one - sided — lots of science but no real focus on the wisdom of Nature.

To me eating real food means asking myself whether the food in front of me was made by nature or by science, reading a list of ingredients and understanding what each one is and why it is in that food product, and understanding that there is a fundamental difference between food and a food product.

the game also docent seem to follow any form of coherent logic, i understand its fantasy but in order for something to feel real it has to follow its own logic, Its a world whos humanity main threat is industrial in nature put people decide to turn native american and ignore any form of science.

The use of real - time data collection and analysis tools can change the nature of science labs.

The NGSS emphasizes the interconnected nature of science in the real world.

Real experts can be wrong when new knowledge, experiments confirm newer theories and disconfirm older ones — that is the nature of real knowledge and scieReal experts can be wrong when new knowledge, experiments confirm newer theories and disconfirm older ones — that is the nature of real knowledge and sciereal knowledge and science.

Their work arises out of a series of oppositional pairs: synthetic - organic, science - nature, digital - real, body - landscape.

«The Search for Solutions video series brings their students vivid, real - life examples of the nature of science and technology, a much - needed resource.»

To make matters more difficult, even a simple mechanistic model (AFRC Wheat) containing good science in it sub-modules, struggles if fed less than perfect data : http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/environmental-modelling/Roger%20Payne.pdf Given the imperfect nature of real - world data, could AFRC wheat ever be shown to be wrong?

A good example of this is that, for all of the heat and noise about Science and Nature and IPCC, you have not provided a single bit of evidence that AGW is real, and neither has anyone else on this blog.

But by bringing in real experts who actually study this, and not a hodge podge of those who ran to it from other disciples (or outside science) because of ideological drive and who fundamentally don't know the issue and, in further flourishes of rhetoric, represent them to the world as «large lists,» and denounce the basic consensus - as Curry has erroneously bought into — implicitly or directly calling the National Academy of Sciences, a stodgy conservative organization that by it's nature (and the nature of caution in scientific assertion) understates, part of the large plot or hoax..

«IPCC reports combined with the tens of thousands of additional scientists and many others who raise real questions that result from reading, reviewing, evaluating and evolving the information in both IPCC summaries and domestic science and discussion of the science, knowledgeably and in good faith and with open identification of the nature of the social and political issues — is just not credible.»

Taking a neutral stance at this point on rehashed work from «NIPCC» (Fred Singer and friends), well known for serial, serious errors in overall interpretation, analysis and communication of the science and transparent but largely unexamined ideological bias at play in their playground «reports» — never mind suggesting that this kind of effort «competes» with the work of the world's climate scientists and the 2,500 multidisciplinary specialists contributing to IPCC reports combined with the tens of thousands of additional scientists and many others who raise real questions that result from reading, reviewing, evaluating and evolving the information in both IPCC summaries and domestic science and discussion of the science, knowledgeably and in good faith and with open identification of the nature of the social and political issues — is just not credible.

That is the real problem of science now: The more complicated the more «intelligent» Only a fool like Pitagoras could have only used a string (the monochord) to understand all laws of nature!

The Nature paper is an outstanding piece of work, and contains material which should be taken on board by everyone interested in climate science communication, Real Climate not excepted!

In less politically charged areas of science, such opinions are (usually) gently tolerated, but since those opinions have been widely help up in the media as evidence of «the controversial nature of climate science», their multiple fallacies and inconsistencies need to be pointed out (which is a real waste of time for the rest of the climate research community).

* As was recently stated in Nature, «Climate: The real holes in climate science» 463 (7279): 284 (2010): «Such holes do not undermine the fundamental conclusion that humans are warming the climate, which is based on the extreme rate of the twentieth - century temperature changes and the inability of climate models to simulate such warming without including the role of greenhouse - gas pollution.»

The very real problem here is that AGWScience rejects all these real examples from Nature, it has given up on observation (*) and so the best we can do is to remind AGW's that this real science exists which does already understand so much of the physical reality we're in.