Sentences with phrase «scientific argument would»

No school could corner the market and thus scientific arguments had the final word.

Again, it seems more shameful tactics are being sought and used by anthropogenic climate change alarmists, instead of empirical scientific arguments they have resorted to bright flashing colorful distractions.

Not exact matches

Atheists currently hold the overwhelming majority of the Noble Prizes, make up less that 0.5 % of the US prison population, have less that 1 % of the divorces in America and have given us many of the scientific and technological achievements you enjoy today... your argument has just been utterly destroyed.

Yes I know this will happen because I have been through these arguments time and time again and when I pull out my Bible that people claim to have read and match it to the scientific evidence that points very clearly to the validity and truth of the Bible they shut up and don't want to hear it.

They are discrediting bible through their wit, intellectual, articulate, scientific and logical but sly arguments to convince every people here on earth that it's a 2000 year old hoax and everything written in it which includes the prophecies in Revelations and the book of Apocalypses that had prophecized their comming.

They are discrediting bible through their wit, intellectual, articulate, scientific and logical arguments to convince every people here on earth that it's a 2000 year old hoax and everything written in it which includes the prophecies in Revelations and the book of Apocalypses that had prophecized their comming.

This year marks 200 years since the birth of Charles Darwin, whose theory of evolution has caused as many religious arguments as it has scientific ones...

Persuaded that no biblical or theological arguments for same - sex relations have survived his initial blasts, Gagnon conducts a mopping - up operation using biological and social - scientific data.

Since then, this conception of metaphysics has given way to one of metaphysics as the study of most basic or general presuppositions, and of the metaphysical argument as hypothetical in the manner of a scientific theory, but on a level of higher generality.

For many people today, the argument has become self - evident; the shift in mood is captured by the title of a recent article by Ruth Macklin (in the Hastings Center Report, December 1977): «On the Ethics of Not Doing Scientific Research.»

Ken Ham challenged Bill Nye to a debate, even while Ken Ham continues to run from me and my proposal that he «come out» and «come clean» regarding his positions relating to my argument that so many of his followers rail against but which quite properly is able to demonstrate why it is, in part, that young - earth creation - science promoters have failed in their scientific pretensions and legal challenges.

Spetner's calculations show that billions of years are insufficient to evolve even one new species, and yet not one scientist has ever even attempted to refute his arguments in a scientific journal.

While I am not religious (I will call myself agnostic), and having an IQ well over genius levels, with scientific and mathematical tendencies, let me ask you a few questions, because what I see here are a bunch of people talking about «no evidence» or «proof» of God's existence, therefore He can't possibly exist, existential arguments, which are not arguments, but fearful, clouded alterations of a truth that can not be seen.

Ever since Thomas Kuhn popularized it with his 1962 book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, the notion of a «paradigm shift» has led to fascinating arguments about whether this or that break with previous scientific understanding countScientific Revolutions, the notion of a «paradigm shift» has led to fascinating arguments about whether this or that break with previous scientific understanding countscientific understanding counted as one.

I am not competent to judge the purely scientific arguments in Phillip Johnson's essay — particularly his suggestion that paleontologists have suppressed evidence unfavorable to Darwinism, thus concealing a fossil gap.

The arguments concerning mathematical probability of intelligent life forming, based on what scientific consensus agrees are necessary ingredients for such life, have been kicked around for some time.

For as has been made vivid by the argument about evolution, two tendencies of thought are between them posing a serious threat to the continued health of scientific endeavor.

So unless you can provide evidence backed by the scientific method, you have no valid argument.

What gives his argument its unexcelled value is his scientific reserve, his disclaimer of any proof having mathematical validity.

all you have to do to prove a scientific argument wrong is provide proof.

The scientific method argument could be used against the M - Theory because some of the required evidence to prove the theory has no possible testing.

Finally, the fact that I treat with respect an idea that has much in its favor, that is believed by the great majority of scientists, that has no decisive arguments against it, and that may well turn out to be true — I am speaking here of the scientific theory called neo-Darwinism — is not «appeasement» but intellectual humility and honesty.

this blog is not working with me... I'll have to catch you guys on another post... it will not accept long post... This is my main point against the scientific method argument; it is consensus in the scientific community that most of our Universe is unseen.

I do not have the scientific training that Barr has, but I'm usually able to follow his arguments, even when I disagree with them.

Just as you have yet to present an argument based on acceptable scientific evidence concerning the afterlife neither have I.

Sir Karl's The Open Society and Its Enemies has become by now a classic argument for rationalism, as eloquent a defense of scientific tolerance as most believers in the law of noncontradiction are likely to want.

Yes, yes, I've heard all the arguments about logical reasoning and scientific research.

«They've been making arguments saying there's no scientific basis for requiring this type of label,» Kyle Landis - Marinello, assistant attorney general assigned to represent Vermont told Vermont's NPR News Source.

The US letter says: «We have not seen a compelling scientific, legal or economic argument for changing the current regulatory regime...» Well, there are plenty scientific, legal and economic arguments warranting the extension of the ban on advertising to 24 months.

In my opinion what has happened in this area is that a kind of social ideology is now embedded within the medical paradigm, to the extent that that social judgments are masquerading as scientific judgments making the science a pseudo science, as a relatively small number of people have been placed in a position wherein they can choose what relevant lines of evidence (and what counter arguments) are acceptable and which are not, as deemed by themselves.

Note that some have such view for religious reasons, some have such view for purely scientific ones (e.g., for a fetus in a stage late enough that it would have survived in nICU if delivered prematurely, it's hard to make an argument that merely being attached to a placenta and not to nICU life support somehow turns the fetus from a live human being to «perfectly fine to surgically excise part of mother's body».

Many within science, in an effort to counter the neglect of scientific argument within contemporary policy debates, have departed from previous commitments to scientific argument and have instead begun to engage in advocacy.

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.

As more scientific evidence shows that CO2 is heating up the globe, naysayers have turned to economics to bolster their argument that little should be done.

In 1987, the Supreme Court banned its teachings from science classes; since then, evolution foes have been trying to couch their arguments in scientific terms.

Instead of criticizing the science itself, these lines of argument suppose that scientists have rigged their research to support the scientific consensus.

World leaders have already agreed that there is no longer any serious scientific argument about the fact that the Earth is heating up and − if no action is taken − will exceed the 2 °C danger threshold.

Scott Lindell, director of the Scientific Aquaculture Program at the Marine Biological Laboratory in Woods Hole, Massachusetts, notes that previous efforts at ranching have been scuppered by political and social arguments about who the fish belong to.

One of the most passionately disputed arguments over a scientific name has finally come to an end.

A new argument against the unilateral reduction of SLCF emissions has now been put forth in a study just published in the scientific journal PNAS.

There are people in the policy world who would like to see action taken much more quickly, and there are some objective, scientific arguments for that.

Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the scientific arguments, the environment ministers maintained last month that the French had no moral right to explode nuclear devices in someone else's back yard.

Recent scholarship has shown that diagrams are an essential part of demonstrating the scientific meaning of an argument, Netz said.

«While this has solved a long - standing scientific argument about which cell types can lead to invasive skin tumours, it is far more than just a piece of esoteric knowledge,» adds Professor Simons.

These include a remarkable field notebook from his famous Beagle voyage to the Galapagos Islands, where detailed observations of the wildlife would later forge his scientific arguments.

Simply put - if a scientist needed to caudle my feelings of belief about consuming protein then they also recognized that I simply had not done enough research to bring a sound scientific argument to this dinner table.

Cate hasn't had an opportunity to respond, but I know she's like to know whether or not you found the argument / scientific rigor of the paper (and associated studies) compelling.

But because these arguments, however plausible, have little research to support them, we set out to determine if they have scientific merit.

There is also the need for citizens and consumers to be informed and engaged in everyday decisions that involve scientific arguments — from policy debates that will have consequences for their health and safety to the products they consume and lifestyle choices they make.

To give you a taste of what is coming in Part 2, the arguments can be summarized as: 1) Education does not lend itself to a single «best» approach, so the Gates effort to use science to discover best practices is unable to yield much productive fruit; 2) As a result, the Gates folks have mostly been falsely invoking science to advance practices and policies they prefer for which they have no scientific support; 3) Attempting to impose particular practices on the nation's education system is generating more political resistance than even the Gates Foundation can overcome, despite their focus on political influence and their devotion of significant resources to that effort; 4) The scale of the political effort required by the Gates strategy of imposing «best» practices is forcing Gates to expand its staffing to levels where it is being paralyzed by its own administrative bloat; and 5) The false invocation of science as a political tool to advance policies and practices not actually supported by scientific evidence is producing intellectual corruption among the staff and researchers associated with Gates, which will undermine their long - term credibility and influence.