Not exact matches
The Center provides them with resources for both blue - sky and de-risking work: blue - sky research follows up on promising but uncertain
scientific leads; while de-risking research is necessary to move a promising biomedical discovery through all the
rigorous tests required for clinical
applications.
So, just as in the law we have two criminal procedures: criminal law where the requirement is «proof beyond reasonable doubt» and civil law «on the balance of probabilities», I personally think it is time we had Science (proof by experiment, the null hypothesis — proof beyond all reasonable doubt) and «science» (soft science)... where assertions are made using
rigorous assessment of the data and the
application of known
scientific principles, but assertions have to be made which can not be subject to the full rigours of the
scientific methodology.
For policymakers these details matter, for they need to know if they are acting on the best of
scientific knowledge, acquired through the
application of the most
rigorous of
scientific practices and observation of
scientific ethics, or whether well - intentioned scientist - activists are shaping climate policy on the basis of less - than - transparent
scientific practices — and I refer here to even minor oversights or the exclusion of seemingly trivial caveats that may take on great importance in an unpredicted future — and unstated personal and political aims.
A «
scientific concept» may come from philosophy, logic, economics, jurisprudence, or other analytic enterprises, as long as it is a
rigorous conceptual tool that may be summed up succinctly (or «in a phrase») but has broad
application to understanding the world.