Im sorry to tell you this but anyone who tells you science can prove this our that, well they forgot the first
rule of science which is science cant prove anything... it can only disprove a theory.
«The
basic rule of science is that hypotheses must be verified by observed data before they can be regarded as facts.
I think to deny every existence of evolution is a mistake, however, the
first rule of science is that there are no absolutes.
While the trained Velociraptors go against
all rules of science, it is a good twist.
Rather than «all
the rules of science and math offer a strong rebuttal to the God in the Bible», these make an overwhelming case for there being a God.
@Observer... «While logic and all
the rules of science and math offer a strong rebuttal to the God in the Bible, there's still the possibility that another nicer, kinder, more caring, less vain, and less brutal God could exist.»
No argument, While logic and all
the rules of science and math offer a strong rebuttal to the God in the Bible, there's still the possibility that another nicer, kinder, more caring, less vain, and less brutal God could exist.
will never bend s knee to any king any man or any god, in the name of sanity those who will be saved are those who follow
the rule of science as religion dies not fast enough.
The rules of science also disqualify any purely negative argumentation designed to dilute the persuasiveness of the theory of evolution.
I am saying that if you present yourself as a «scientific authority» and make statements that you claim are supported by scientific evidence, you should play by
the rules of science.
In their eyes, string theorists are in the undesirable position of having to change
the rules of science to make their theory work.
A modest effort to enlist amateur bird - watchers in the cause of ornithology wound up producing a fire hose of data and helping rewrite the rules of science
We sit down with iconic author Richard Matheson to talk about «Real Steel,»
the rules of science - fiction and the evolution of what is now a 55 year - old robot boxing tale.
That means light waves, electric magnetic waves, vegetables, minerals, animal, DNA, crystal, organic... It's all been mashed up and it's all behaving oddly... It's about an annihilation of
our rules of science.»
I think this breaks
every rule of science communication, and would make the IPCC a huge target for criticism that they are essentially promoting an ideological or business agenda.
My problem with these attempts to convince / influence people by appealing to something other than the actual science is that they tend to work equally well both ways, whereas sticking to
the rules of science really does tend to favor the truth.
This does not justify the misuse of
the rules of science or the perversion of the law to achieve a political agenda.
For years, Hansen's group at GISS, as well as other leading climate scientists such as Mann and Briffa (creators of historical temperature reconstructions) have flaunted
the rules of science by holding the details of their methodologies and algorithm's secret, making full scrutiny impossible.
Hess treats CSICOP members» writings thoughtfully and seriously, but makes much of their martial and military metaphors and what he sees as tendency to adopt the role of self - conscious heroic underdog, «who may overstep the boundaries of scientific methods in order to preserve
the rule of science» [p. 88].
The first
rule of science is, «The minute you begin to believe your own hypothesis, you are a dead duck as a scientist.»
Without exaggerating, I accuse Naomi Oreskes of attempting to rewrite
the rules of science itself.
Augmented reality promised us a world of whimsy not confined by
the rules of science.