Sentences with phrase «saw another side of science»

I also saw another side of science on the other side of the Atlantic, in terms of a different philosophical and practical approach.

Not exact matches

Physics - lite @ CN77 & Andrew Andrew's Quote «It's not all that pointless, see while you would never be convinced that your bronze age mythological beliefs about the creation of the universe are wrong, since I can rebut (with peer reviewed journal articles no less) any claim you make, in rather stunning detail, those who are not so well versed on the subject who read the dialogue could be swayed to the side of science.

At the UN, we see Islamic nations, the Catholic Church and Protestant fundamentalists on the same side in the matters of science and society, modernity and secularism.

Vico's fantasia abhors partial vision, and the great mathematician and astronomer Henri Poincare is on his side when he observes in his Last Essays that in questions of ethics science alone can not suffice because it «can see only one part of man, or, if you prefer, it sees everything but it sees everything from the same angle.»

Amen.The thing is too many people from both sides try to disprove the other, Scientist (well some) will say there is no God Ala Hawkings here and then some believers will say that evolution or anything pertaining to science that they don't understand is false.I don't believe that science and God are mutually exclusive.For me personally science helps to explain a lot of things regarding creation, almost like giving me a window into how creative God is.I believe that God uses science to show us how awesome he is.To me science does not disprove Gods existence it actually reaffirms it on a human logic level, for me.You may disagree, that's fine, but this is just how I see it.

I still don't understand people's obsession with boxing players in to a specific role... The whole «true DM» is a dying breed, even Coquelin is arguably something else considering the advanced positions he takes up often in front of Santi and takes major risks in winning the ball back for us... IMO, the reason Coquelin has had such a successful integration into the first team is that he focussed incredibly hard on the basics of his role first and foremost before adding other elements to his game (long - balls, driving runs into space, more aggressive ball movement in general) it's not rocket science to tell a player to curb the attacking side of their game and focus primarily on defence before attack... Nor is it that hard to see that playing in a midfield pairing with either Ramsey or Cazorla is going to be different as well.

It can be used for a whole range of tasks, from playing high - def video to word processing, and its designers, a group of Cambridge University computer scientists, came up with the idea of Raspberry Pi to encourage more children to get involved with the programming side of computer science, after seeing skill levels among A level students dwindle since the mid 1990s.

On the fundamental science side, the Office of Science fared somewhat better (as seen in Figure 1 above), owing to greater bipartisan agreement on basic rescience side, the Office of Science fared somewhat better (as seen in Figure 1 above), owing to greater bipartisan agreement on basic reScience fared somewhat better (as seen in Figure 1 above), owing to greater bipartisan agreement on basic research.

Steve Burrill, CEO of Burrill & Company, a merchant bank that concentrates on life sciences, sees another side of the coin.

Legislators on both sides of the aisle in the U.S. House of Representatives say they love science, which is seen as engine for innovation and economic growth.

... Now I'm really glad to have seen a different side of science.

Steve: It was Newton who said, «If I can see farther, it's because I've stood on the shoulders of giants» and it was, I believe, Gerald Holton, the historian of science, who once commented at a dinner, «We are now privileged to sit side by side with the giants upon whose shoulders we stand».

There are many arguments for and against such a funding model, and I've seen it from both sides: from the view of a small lab competing for ever - shrinking NIH funds, and as part of a major collaboration funded by «big science» awards.

As you'll soon see, while «muscle memory» may be a bit of a misnomer, it's a well - established phenomenon that has science on its side.

I sadly stopped after Goblet of Fire: / Just a quick side note, I'm fully Christian and see no harm in reading a bit of science fiction here and there.

It really requires working both sides of the brain — you have to engage with the science and see the story in it.

Its science - fiction status is hinted at by visual design, as in the film's opening moments, when concentric circles appear out of the darkness on screen, then are seen to separate, inhabiting three - dimensional space, from left to right, with a bright light blazing on one side.

This is perhaps the most dense science fiction psychobabble this side of L. Ron Hubbard's Battlefield Earth saga, which I myself have read and seen the awful resulting film with John Travolta.

On both sides of the market — both those who publish science - fiction and those who read it — are the ones we've seen adopting this technology first.

On the left - hand side of the screen, you'll see that it's broken down into romance, science fiction, all the usual categories and subcategories of books.

You are presupposing that climate science is like a courtroom, each side is advocating for a course of action and it is the jury's job to see who presents the best case.

I look at the other side of the argument, and I see these guys aren't doing science.

Funny thing that, everybody seems to have a favorite data store («Temps Are Us») that conveniently always has exactly the data we need to support OUR hypothesis in stock, and everybody is quite certain that the crappy data store on the poor side of town is selling garbage data...... Frankly if we turn over the label on most climate science data we see a «Made in China» sticker...

I haven't seen this yet, and only read the above comments, but it is interesting that with the lack of many pro-AGW witnesses, it was the Dem senators putting forwards the science side of the debate, and seemingly holding their own in taking it to the scientists on the panel.

If you follow the history of Eugenics and make a side - by - side comparison to Climate Science, you will see for yourself the parallel, only taking place in the late 20th and early 21st Century: Fewer people on the planet; better people that are left; and, as an overriding imperative of course, the few who are designated to decide.

«Climate change has taken on political dimensions... That's odd because I don't see people choosing sides over E = mc2 or other fundamental facts of science.»

This is the Q&A between Senator Ed Markey (D - MA), Judith Curry (Prof Atmospheric Science, GA Inst Tech), and Mark Steyn (arts reviewer and conservative activist)... Senator Ed Markey has been briefed by activists, doesn't listen to the testimony, and so not only does not understand the other side of either the science or policy debates (which differ), he does not know there is an other side (he just sees Science, GA Inst Tech), and Mark Steyn (arts reviewer and conservative activist)... Senator Ed Markey has been briefed by activists, doesn't listen to the testimony, and so not only does not understand the other side of either the science or policy debates (which differ), he does not know there is an other side (he just sees science or policy debates (which differ), he does not know there is an other side (he just sees error).

Many people on the skeptical side of the climate debate see Jerry Ravetz» «postnormal science» as part of the problem, indeed the man himself as responsible in large part for formulations such as those of the late Stephen Schneider regarding making a judgement about the balance between truth and effectiveness.

That is what I see being exchanged, ubiquitously in the climate wars, whether it be «realists» saying that they have a privileged view into what science says, or «skeptics» saying that they have a privileged view of what science says, without either side stopping to pay serious consideration to that long list of criteria I feel are necessary.

This discussion was on the actual science of dendroclimatology and while there are some snide remarks on both sides, I don't see why that would deter anyone from coming here and getting down and dirty over theory or data.

The problem is that both sides tend to see a conspiracy both in the promotion of the results of science like this and in opposition to the research results which it is claimed is funded by commercial interests like the Donor fund and promulgated by the same tactics and often the same people that undermined the science on tobbaco, asbestos, DDT, CFCs, lead.....

Increasingly, you see some Republicans coming out and saying look, let's get on the right side of the science.

----- The same vapid attempt to produce a «sound of science» is seen in the thread «how - to - talk - to - global - warming - sceptic» but again «the discussion» is near a copy of the same - old attempts to prop up a pointless «hockey stick» plot of temperature with attached supposition of «climate change» platformed along side.

If I do not see how you perceive the unsound science on both sides of this debate, I am at a loss as to understand how to evaluate your analysis.

All we need to do is look at the polls of where the public stands, and at the polls that reveal the scientific ignorance underlying widespread public opinion, to see that the impact of the unsound science on the skeptics» side is significant.

One of the world's most famous global warming contrarians says he sees eye to eye with Al Gore on climate science — for the most part — and claims his view have been distorted by those on both sides of the global warming debate.

So true, on the other side of the science equation which has been politically quashed is the data that show that the temperatures peaked about 5 - 7 thousand years ago and that we are now seeing the associated spike in CO2 that has followed these historically documented temperature variations that the climate change prophets have completely blocked from our eyes.

I've seen both two sides of the climate debate, and in case you haven't noticed, one side contradicts the other on very complicated science details.

It IS possible to disagree about science facts, science opinions, research findings and policy issues without engaging in the kinds of truly deplorable behavior we have seen from «both sides» [how I hate having to say that] of the Climate Controversy.

That was - in a matter of a few tens of seconds, climate myths 1, 170 (possibly - see below), 39, 46, 27, 1 again, 4, 45, 9 and 37, as listed in the Skeptical Science Most Used Climate Myths database that appears on the left - hand side of all Skeptical Science pages.

Of course correlation isn't causation, but in light of the incredible correlations as shown above to say categorically and didactically that solar intensity has been «ruled out» as causing what recent warming was seen as if same has been stated by God does a disservice to science generally but also to their own sidOf course correlation isn't causation, but in light of the incredible correlations as shown above to say categorically and didactically that solar intensity has been «ruled out» as causing what recent warming was seen as if same has been stated by God does a disservice to science generally but also to their own sidof the incredible correlations as shown above to say categorically and didactically that solar intensity has been «ruled out» as causing what recent warming was seen as if same has been stated by God does a disservice to science generally but also to their own side.

Or you might look at misbehavior which is all too common in ordinary pseudoscience disputes, but which in the physical and biological sciences is very uncommon on the funded academic side: e.g., triumphalism about unfalsifiable claims, and circling the wagons around various kinds of data hiding (e.g., remarkably lackadaisical formal investigation of CRU even after FOIA violations, and broad enthusiasm for promoting the formal results into an informal full «nothing to see here, move along» exoneration).

I find it strange that the «enlightened» believers in science can see the ridiculous behavior on the side of the deniers and ignore that same kind of behavior in their own camp.

20 years of acrimonious debate of the science and policy (because your side lies their butts off and make lurid accusations about governmental control and conspiracies that don't exist)» I've seen enough acrimonious debate on this site that shows plenty of selective, cherry - picked arguments.

For the technical side of this research, see Environmentally responsible fabrication of efficient perovskite solar cells from recycled car batteries in the journal Energy & Environmental Science.