Sentences with phrase «scientific argument in both cases»

Not exact matches

Here is what you wrote — «Despite the fact that a Fall 2012 Cochrane Library Review (considered the gold standard of independent inquiry and scientific objectivity) reports that home birth is as safe or in many cases actually safer than hospital birth, the American obstetrical community continues to publicly oppose homebirth, citing safety concerns as their main argument.»

Despite the fact that a Fall 2012 Cochrane Library Review (considered the gold standard of independent inquiry and scientific objectivity) reports that home birth is as safe or in many cases actually safer than hospital birth, the American obstetrical community continues to publicly oppose homebirth, citing safety concerns as their main argument.

So if you ever want to see if we have a problem in policing related to race, pay related to gender or a problem with violence against transgender individuals, in all of those cases it becomes impossible to make a scientific argument — because if those categories are never recorded in official documents, you can never do the data collection to show what's true.

In addition to offering various scientific arguments for the existence of God, the book also makes a case for the compatibility of Christian faith and science based on a model that Collins termed «BioLogos.»

Regarding whether those ignorant in statistics can understand Hansen's latest papers, I'm a perfect test case: My knowledge of stats is low (if I had ever heard the term «sigma» before, I don't recall it), and only have a basic humanities major's ability to grasp scientific arguments (well, maybe a little better since I work with scientists as expert witnesses).

The e-mails, attributed to prominent American and British climate researchers, include discussions of scientific data and whether it should be released, exchanges about how best to combat the arguments of skeptics, and casual comments — in some cases derisive — about specific people known for their skeptical views.

The Climategate scandal played a role in the passage of the amendment, introduced by Republican Representative Blaine Luetkemeyer, who successfully made the case that the Climategate emails discredit the UN's claims to scientific integrity: «emails publicly released from a university in England showed that leading global scientists intentionally manipulated climate data and suppressed legitimate arguments in peer - reviewed journals,» he stated.

Note the distinction — in one case, your strawman case, consensus is used as the basis for a logical scientific argument.

Here is Lucas, speaking at a recent debate held by the World Development Movement, setting out her case for carbon rationing, trading and «equality» and selling her argument for «equality» in such (pseudo) scientific terms.

«I've seen Al Gore's film twice, but I've also read Michael Crichton's State of Fear, which makes a compelling case on the other side,» says Hug, referring to the controversial 2004 novel in which Crichton — using scientific arguments that were hotly challenged by critics — ridiculed the global - warming consensus as the work of conspiratorial alarmists.

I realize it's kind of late for making suggestions, but here goes anyway: Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner claim to have falsified the existence of an atmospheric greenhouse effect.It looks like you have addressed T&G's main arguments (eg, about the 2nd law), but I wonder if it might be appropriate to put in a brief description of what it means to «falsify» something in the scientific sense — ie, essentially what T&G must show (and failed to show) to make their case that there is no greenhouse effect: namely, 1) experimental evidence that shows the opposite of what an atmospheric greenhouse effect would necessarily produce and / or 2) evidence that the greenhouse effect would actually violate some physical law (eg, 2nd law of thermo) The pot on the stove example is obviously an attempt to show that you get a colder temp with the water than without, but I think it's worthwhile explicitly stating that «because T&G failed to demonstrate that the pot on the stove example is a valid analogy for the earth, they failed to falsify the atmospheric greenhouse effect» And you could also add a sentence stating that «because T&G failed to show that the greenhouse effect would require a violation of the 2nd law [because their arguments were incorrect], they also failed to falsify»

Unlike Kiehl and Trenberth who base much of their argument on published supposition and make the horrible error of not leaving any energy in their balance to create fossil fuels, Miskolczi rigorously sets about working from the actual spectral effects from atmospheric gases and provides a properly justified but theoretical scientific case for demonstrating the errors of Kiehl and Trenberth.

The magenta line represents the scientific presentation (in this case it is just the OLS trend line), where the offset hasn't been cherry picked to support the desired argument.

My claim (verified in the evolution case) is what you would expect to see is almost all of the reputable scientific organizations defending the theory while a group attacks it and claims that they are being mistreated, that data is being manipulated, that the scientific community is suppressing data and arguments against the theory, etc., etc..

That any objection to a political argument in favour of a course of action, founded on a scientific case, will necessarily «doubt» that the scientific evidence is sufficient to warrant the political action to which one objects.

That speaks to me of scientific integrity, and it is refreshing to encounter it in the climate debate which is often dominated by what might be, at best, called «courtroom integrity» in which antagonists vie with each other to present watertight cases immune to argument and contradiction.

«Both cases, as well as the broader international controversies over whaling and sealing in the context of which they arose, illustrate the persuasive power of the «appeal to science»: enlisting scientific objectivity and rigour to underpin the credibility of legal arguments and legal norms,» says the abstract.