Sentences with phrase «scientific arguments from»

Similarly, Monbiot claims that climate change deniers — the ones he compares nuclear sceptics to — have not produced their scientific arguments from an objective, transparent, impartial basis; they are driven by a commitment to a «free - market ideology», or more straightforwardly, by their lust for profit.

Engineers are over-represented among creationists, too... we see supposedly scientific arguments from engineers applied to evolutionary biology all the time.

When they find themselves on display in an unfair and unflattering way, scientists should take a deep breath, calm down, sort scientific arguments from personal attacks, and calculate an appropriate response — or just let it go.

Yeah, because people will believe scientific arguments from a group that starts with a premise that life begins at conception.

Not exact matches

Since the argument is that this is the scientific way to do things, let me start with an example from serious science: pharmaceuticals.

Even from a scientific standpoint your argument is ridiculous.

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.

To those who think attributing scientific results to God is a poor argument, just think about the big bang... it probably happened but where did the atoms come from to create the big bang?

The big bang does not state that something comes from nothing, and the rest of your argument is ludicrous.This is why Bill Nye is right - a lack of scientific understanding results in a nation full of ignorance and lack of critical thinking; not good for a nation that is basically making money by being on the cutting edge of technology.

Theists make a non-falsifiable argument and call it proof, while atheists use a more scientific method for determining reality from fantasy.

Perhaps a summary of the basics of Catholic teaching on each issue, arguments from scripture, arguments from natural law and empirical evidence from modern society and scientific understanding?

You can't prove difinitively using scientific method where life came from and yet you (not necessarily YOU, but others on this blog who support your argument) call me arrogant or moronic because I point to a creator, which I can not prove scientifically either.

The statement is not intended to give scientific precision, but it restates the argument from propriety, this time appealing to things as they are - «nature.»

Ruini implies that the Pope's line of argument was that this reductionism arises from an unjustified transference of scientific reductionism to philosophy - a sort of forgetfulness of what was validly and completely left out in order forexperimental methodology to progress.

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.

Working together, they will develop and test a variety of learning experiences in which students use online simulations to model energy - releasing and energy - requiring reactions, analyze and interpret data to make predictions about energy phenomena, and use evidence from their own observations or from simplified versions of scientific articles to explain phenomena and construct and critique arguments.

The ethical argument becomes even more problematic when we are discussing the removal of a body from scientific exploration, whether for reburial or otherwise.

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.

By tracing the development of what we now call the «scientific method» — an approach, developed over centuries, that emphasizes experiments and observations rather than reasoning from first principles — he makes the argument that science, unlike other ways of interpreting the world around us, can offer true progress.

One thing you should know is that arguments from consequences are not valid in scientific debate.

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.

«Howarth raises the legitimate argument that aircraft studies represent snapshots in time and space,» but his conclusion that satellite data from a single study is the best data that exists does not represent current scientific consensus, Schwietzke said.

Mindblowing stuff with all the references to scientific data to back up your claims and even more importantly; looking from several viewpoints to make your argument.

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.

I am pleased to see a document, such as this, which speaks to something as important as our education system that uses proper scientific citing of bona fide papers on the subject as opposed to emotional arguments meant to sway voters or think - tank «papers» from thinly (or otherwise) veiled lobby groups whose intent is NOT the betterment of our educational system but rather the increase of funneling of tax - payer dollars away from socially responsible infrastructures (like education) and towards already wealthy private corporations.

He also cowers away from facing the most compelling philosophical and scientific arguments these people and others make.

We use scientific and legal arguments to promote and advocate for the protection of animals from cruelty.

I've thoroughly reviewed Blackwell's study and several accompanying papers, have taken an extensive look at all claimed negative consequences of dog shock collars and whether there's some good scientific evidence on the pros of using dog training collars aside from the arguments made by author Steven R Lindsay.

If you have not, and as you have said, you've only «tried to follow the debate by reading journal articles and posts», and I think «tried» is your operative word; then from a scientific point of view, are not then your opinions more in the «less likely» or «very unlikely» category of confidence, from an objective or qualitative argument perspective?

I've had arguments with many a climate skeptic, with and without scientific backgrounds alike (arguing with those from the Engineering community can be especially difficult)

I doubt that anyone can make a strong argument that we know from scientific research what would have happened in the absence of human interventions, and mathematical models are all over the place.

I study human morality from the scientific and reasoning / philosophical standpoints, and I've been developing an argument and conclusions that bridge the two in ways that are sound, solid, evidence - based, and grounded, in my view.

As the science blogger James Hrynyshyn put it last year (responding to a similar Wall Street Journal piece), there's little merit in the argument that scientific disagreement (a normal part of the scientific process) undermines the basic findings pointing to substantial risks from unabated emissions of greenhouse gases.

The coalition did, however, as the article reported, remove from an internal report by the scientific advisory committee a section that said that «contrarian» theories of why global temperatures appeared to be rising «do not offer convincing arguments against the conventional model of greenhouse gas emission - induced climate change.»

Milloy's specious argument is a characteristic example for a method frequently employed by «climate skeptics»: from a host of scientific data, they cherry - pick one result out of context and present unwarranted conclusions, knowing that a lay audience will not easily recognise their fallacy.

My first degree in is Physics, and I do from time to time comment directly on scientific issues, but nevertheless I think it is fair to say that the main thrust of my posted arguments against people like yourself and, indeed Nic Lewis, is more political than scientific.

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.

Otherwise, negotiating sessions will degenerate into never - ending arguments about what one country's scientific experts think versus what those from another country think.

Pekka responds with arguments from authority (i.e. «the scientific community has agreed...») or cites physical theory, but has not cited any empirical evidence so far.

That's true of «cultural cognition» and like forms of motivated reasoning that figure in the tendency of people to fit their assessments of information — from scientific «data» to expository arguments to the positions of putative experts to (again!)

I don't see that Crichton's argument is any better — it uses the precise same tactic of arguing from the fundamental uncertainty of the scientific enterprise to try to undermine results that Crichton doesn't like.

If you stay, try asking and commenting on other than shallow circular analysis of what constitutes straw man, argument from authority and scientific consensus.

Another argument presented against advocacy implicitly appears in Tasmin Edwards Guardian piece, relating to perceived scientific authority and the potential dangers of promoting values from such a position.

Their tactics and fallacies include ignoring or distorting mainstream scientific results, cherry - picking data and falsely generalizing, bringing up irrelevant red - herring arguments, demanding unachievable «precision» from mainstream science with the motif «if you don't understand this detail you don't understand anything», overemphasizing and mischaracterizing uncertainties in mainstream science, engaging in polemics and prosecutorial - lawyer Swift - Boat - like attacks on science - and lately even scientists, attacking the usual scientific process, misrepresenting legitimate scientific debate as «no consensus», and overemphasizing details of little significance.

This is not simply an argument about AGW; it is about how we conduct ourselves in science, and in policy arising from scientific understanding.

In doing so, the best he can offer from moral philosophy is a reduction of complicated scientific, political, and economic arguments to facile comparisons of «business as usual» to «standing around, watching a child drown».

Argument from authority is a good rule of thumb principle for a mature scientific research field with solid empirical backing and testable and verified hypothesis.

Also, Inside Climate News recently described a new study published in Science about how fossil - fuel funded climate - science deniers disingenuously shift their arguments and use normal scientific uncertainties to deflect attention from the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change and argue for no action to reduce greenhouse - gas emissions.

One of the favorite smears from Dr. Stephan Lewandowsky used to try to diminish the arguments of climate skeptics is to create dodgy psuedo - scientific psychological studies with a bent on trying to prove that skeptics are conspiracy theorists.