Sentences with phrase «real point of science»

The standard was lowered not by any real point of science but because the standard was lowered because the ability to judge moral issues was given up by the APA.The Bible standard was also given up, so now you essentially have no standard just a set of laws telling people you can or cant do.

«The standard was lowered not by any real point of science but because the standard was lowered because the ability to judge moral issues was given up by the APA»

Not exact matches

I would like to point out to those here who think it is not possible for Jesuits (or anyone) to hold science and faith simultaneously, and who invoke «evidence» as the only arbiter of what is real, that human knowledge is always evolving.

And secondly, Stephen Barr's point seems to be a real solution: that theologians need to learn the language of science - not just absorbing the factual evidence of recent discoveries, but also the methodologies and modes of thought that scientists, whether quantum physicists or population geneticists, employ in their day - to - day grappling with problems in their fields.

The point for us is not to be so sure that the dominant image of the world given to us by the science of the past, which is called the modern worldview, is a picture of the real world.

Because efforts have been made to obscure the point, it should be emphasized that Simpson's view is not some personal opinion extraneous to the real «science» of Darwinism.

He is a retired earth science teacher at Rocky Point High School and is currently CEO of Greenport Real Estate Investment LLC.

The findings do point to the power of facial expressions in transmitting bias, but that doesn't mean they reflect people's actual viewing habits or their responses to the full shows in their real context, says Diana Mutz, a professor of communications and political science at the University of Pennsylvania.

Accumulated points can be redeemed for more Spongelab games — none of the games cost real money — or earn discounts on science - themed merchandise.

The «magical world» created by his father became for Dr. Lomvardas the entry point into the real world of science, where he would one day work with Nobel laureates Eric Kandel and Richard Axel and conduct research into the molecular mechanisms of olfactory receptors — «one of the most enigmatic and complex problems in biology.»

While this is may not be qualified as «real» science, a rating system for each individual protein from the former mentioned methods presented above may be determined by assigning a descending - ordered score of 10 -9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1 points for rating each protein quality by each method.

Unpopular but real science points to those added sugars and HFCS as the primary source of obesity, metabolic dysfunction leading to diabetes, and arterial inflammation leading to heart disease.

The problem with the film isn't in its placement in the realm of science fiction films as much as its placement in the real world, where the plot necessitates a triple - jump for every leap in logic to get us from point A to Z. For instance, the film pushes forward the notion that scientists don't give any thought or research whatsoever to the ramifications of their inventions before unleashing them on the world at large.

Of course making mistakes has its consequences (loss of points, inability to proceed, game - over, etc.), but this is not as tragic as blowing up a real science laOf course making mistakes has its consequences (loss of points, inability to proceed, game - over, etc.), but this is not as tragic as blowing up a real science laof points, inability to proceed, game - over, etc.), but this is not as tragic as blowing up a real science lab.

2) Along the same lines, I think it's important to point out that for most of science and especially including medicine, the real nut to crack is how folks looked at it BACK THEN (depending on your genre).

Tom Yulsman at the University of Colorado makes this point bitingly at CEJournal, noting the ridiculousness of rehashing basic climate science in the face of clear evidence that the lack of a forward - looking American energy policy --- particularly one aimed at weaning the country from at least the liquid fossil fuel — is a real - time crisis.

Question: before talking about simulating climate CHANGE, how long does the climate science community expect it to take before GCM's can reproduce the real world climate PRIOR to human induced CO2 perturbation in terms of: — «equilibrium point», i.e. without artificial flux adjustment to avoid climatic drift, — «natural variability», in terms of, for instance, the Hurst coefficient at different locations on the planet?

In those films, I wanted to make sure that capturing these real points of view also benefited science.

If that makes the science unsettled when compared to the billions of data points accumulated by thousands of real climate scientists working over fifty years, then nothing will ever be settled enough for you.

In the real world, people are laughing and pointing fingers at the various co-Emperors» lack of clothing, but they and the mainstream climate science folks are acting like nothing has happened and nothing is happening.

Perhaps the real division needs to be to create a subject which is the application of climate science — to create clear (melted ice) between climate science which is based on the scientific methodology and the null hypothesis and «climate prediction» where the «best» predictions are made based on the balance of evidence but there is no pretence that these predictions have or even can be tested (except by comparison to what happens... which I have to point out isn't climate «science's» / forecasters strong card!)

Is climate science making this kind of error, and not knowing they are making this kind of error of simply using too many approximations of real world variables (albedos, transmission losses, cloud reflections, and everything else) that are NOT simple one - point constants?

There are also skeptics insisting that the issue is ONLY about the state of the science — whether AGW is real — but on this point I disagree.

What I am trying to point out is how they have done this, by tweaking real world physics, swapping properties and processes etc., because this is a scam, a science fraud on a grand scale, and they have used all kinds of tricks to fool the eye, ear and mind.

or is it just that communicating openly and taking into account differing points of view and thought might be the key to REAL SCIENCE?

In addition «the AGW hypothesis» is a sloppy code phrase that defines a point of view rather than real science.

Robert Brown wrote: I should point out that this is my real interest at the moment — the philosophy of knowledge and the basis of science — and I am happy to cite you chapter and verse.

I should point out that this is my real interest at the moment — the philosophy of knowledge and the basis of science — and I am happy to cite you chapter and verse.

Numerous attempts (such as the very carefully researched NIPCC reports) to point out the inconsistencies between the CIC fantasy science world and the real world have not always convinced the alarmists, however, perhaps because the public finds the technical discussion of the many areas of science involved too difficult.

Ultimately science leads to something real — skirmishes lead to talking points superficially in the objective idiom of science.

If ABC management wants the definitive response to conservative politicians who complain that its coverage of climate change is biased (because it reports real science), it should point to Australia All Over.

We could agree to disagree on that point, a point of no real importance for the science, a point barely visible to the untrained, naked eye anyway.

Taking a neutral stance at this point on work from «NIPCC» (Fred Singer et al.), suggesting that this kind of effort «competes» with the work of several of the world's climate scientists and a large number of multidisciplinary specialists contributing to IPCC reports combined with the 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, is just not credible, in my humble opinion.

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.

Most of what science «knows» about «global warming» at this point is only speculation and theory, but at least it is based on real science... not computer generated climate scenarios as parroted by the IPCC policymakers.

Real Climate pointed to an interesting scholarly article on the hurricane debate: Curry, Webster, & Holland, «Mixing Politics and Science in Testing the Hypothesis That Greenhouse Warming Is Causing a Global Increase in Hurricane Intensity» in the current Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (BAMS).

The context being the point I'm making that the Greenhouse Effect is built on science fraud by sleight of hand changes to real physics, the ideal gas / real gas is just one example — the real world around us is nothing like it is depicted in the AGW GHE..

The first part of the hearing had some real nasty actors, ably supported by the usual suspects, and Heidi Cullen, who is a young, pretty, nice woman, was out of her depth answering pointed questions meant to undermine science, though she has the knowledge to do so.

All kind of cursory analyses of practices in climate science can be completed with more modest resources, but the real point is determining the accuracy of the whole scientific input, which can be done only by going once more through all relevant pieces of it.

Vernon's mission is to anger Gavin, at which point the climate blogger ethics panel in permanent session over at Climate Audit and Climate Science will convict Real Climate of being a very nasty place indeed.

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).

Gavin Schmidt replied to Steven Mosher over at Real Climate with the following comment which is also applicable in this case: «It's generally not the contrarians who drive better understandings of the science, because most of the contrarian points are completely irrelevant and are used as rhetorical, not scientific, points.

At one point or another, each of these claims represented a real problem with the science of global heating.

As coby has pointed out on other sections of his blog, the confluence of science from a wide variety of areas that has led to almost every real scientist in fields related to climate science (and especially those in climate science itself) accepting the basic tenets of anthropenically induced global climate change.

Persuasion to the Real Climate point of view is possible only if those who write there, and here, remember that people are suspicious when reasonable questions about disputed science are met by an extraordinary exhibition of affronted pique and wounded amour - propre such as the one above.

At this point and even if you disagree, do you at least see why I'm arguing that CO2 = CAGW Climate Science has operated according to an unscientific definition of «peer review» and has, therefore, conveyed the wrong idea of what real science is to anyone who, especially through no fault of their own, is ignorant of what real sciencScience has operated according to an unscientific definition of «peer review» and has, therefore, conveyed the wrong idea of what real science is to anyone who, especially through no fault of their own, is ignorant of what real sciencscience is to anyone who, especially through no fault of their own, is ignorant of what real sciencescience does?

Good point; this study was conducted in the United States, where the issue of a lack of women in the sciences is a real problem.