Sentences with phrase «scientific arguments presented»

Not exact matches

[1][2] It is a contemporary adaptation of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, presented by its advocates as «an evidence - based scientific theory about life's origins» rather than «a religious - based idea».

Though it is entirely legitimate for a scientist, or anyone else, to present philosophical or theological arguments against naturalistic evolution, it can not properly be claimed that such arguments are themselves scientific ones.

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

Instead of relying on scientific arguments for the rationalization of the Buddhist experience they are at present trying to resort to its own dialectics.»

The change — a subject of much scientific debate at the time and since — made no sense, says Runyon, lead author of a short paper making the pro-Pluto argument that will be presented next week at a scientific conference in Texas.

Scientists frequently lament the scarcity of effective scientific communicators — those who can explain complex concepts to the public, present scientifically sound alternatives to policy - makers, and make cogent arguments for the value of science to society.

This is an argument presented by researchers at Umeå University in an article published in the scientific journal PLOS Medicine.

In fact, I couldn't present a clear scientific argument linking GMO foods with the development of heart disorders.

Writing Task The Lesson Level Learning Goal for this task is: Construct and present an oral and written argument supported by empirical evidence and scientific reasoning to support the claim that activities such as deforestation or reforestation can cause changes in the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Building a book - length argument around his contention that «the seventeenth century is the moment when one world - view was displaced by another because the scientific displaced that of faith,» Grayling paints a picture of astronomers, mathematicians, medical doctors, and even alchemists often reaching conclusions that even they dearly hoped weren't true — because the answers meant opposing Christian doctrine, unwise if you wanted to keep your job, freedom or head... To my ear, though, the tone of the Grayling's prose is rather flat — think «textbook» and you've pretty much got it — so many of these unexpected sidelights are not presented as compellingly or dramatically as one might hope.

This summary presents the main arguments against a legal ban on declawing (of cats and other animals), and the documented, scientific facts about each one — as opposed to the opinions expressed by the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) and various other...

I have long complained about the lack of willingness of most contrarians to attend and present their arguments at mainstream scientific conferences.

My first reaction was to think that you would be more effective if you simply presented clearly data and arguments that prove that the Robinson et al. arguments are riddled with important errors and based on bias rather than scientific arguement, without blatantly ridiculing of the people who wrote the article.

In my mind, one of the key scientific issues is whether the Clement / Cane argument for an increased SST gradient is valid, is detectable in the data, and (if valid) is present in the models.

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.

This IMO makes it a bit weaker as a argument when presented to a layman / «skeptic» even if it does have a sound scientific methodology behind it.

It should be abandoned in favor of a more traditional review that presents arguments for and against — which would better support scientific progress, and be more useful for policy makers.»

Professor Curry has recommended that the scientific consensus - seeking process be abandoned in favour of a more traditional review that presents arguments for and against, and discusses the uncertainties.

I have recommended that the scientific consensus seeking process be abandoned in favor of a more traditional review that presents arguments for and against, discusses the uncertainties, and speculates on the known and unknown unknowns.

There is just no way that those who attack the consensus on climate change will ever stop their opposition when presented with purely scientific arguments.

«But», you could now say to me, «granting, for the sake of argument only, that Miliband and others may be going rather too far, surely there is clear scientific evidence that human - induced global warming presents a serious problem which has to be dealt with.

Dear Don, your post was really informative and this is very interesting and most sensitive issue in the present world.climate ethics are most important for everyone.because these are an important role in climate changes.i agree with your argument, i think scientific measures must have been taken by the government in order to successful implementation of the climate ethics.

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.

Finally, the evidence has mounted up that, with a handful of exceptions, «sceptics» are not, as they claim, fearless seekers after scientific truth, but ideological partisans and paid advocates, presenting dishonest arguments for a predetermined party - line conclusion.

No one hinders you to study the scientific papers yourself and evaluate the evidence and arguments presented in them, on which those expert opinions in the IPCC Report are formed.

I recommend this book for anyone wanting the tools and scientific literature to refute the ever present argument: Climate change is anthropogenic and begins and ends with the production of carbon dioxide.

Applying ad hoc filtering mechanisms to reduce the solution space may «look» scientific, but without some basis for applying the solution space reduction the argument is that the policy makers should be presented with the full range of uncertainty.

I think a more realistic view of the silence was presented... damn, I can't find the link, although I almost certainly read it via Planet3 blogs... anyway, the argument was that the deniers gained momentum during a period post 2007 when the scientific argument wasn't being loudly trumpeted.

Hoerling: «We can also say with high confidence that no appreciable trend toward either wetter or drier conditions has been observed for statewide average precipitation since 1895» — «At present, the scientific evidence does not support an argument that the drought there is appreciably linked to human - induced climate change... In short, the drought gripping California has been observed before.

He has presented the basic, lengthy case for AGW as a series of bald assertions, raising at least 100 separate scientific arguments.

The Scientific Guide to Global Warming Skepticism looks at both the evidence that human activity is causing global warming and the ways that climate «skeptic» arguments can mislead by presenting only small pieces of the puzzle rather than the full picture.

Good one, I hope any normal person that stumbles upon this blog can recognize the level of nonsense arguments presented here that «appear» to be based on scientific discoveries, but really aren't.

While that's easy for you to say it does not agree with the journal's statement: «The handling editor (and the executive committee) concluded to allow final publication of the manuscript in ACP in order to facilitate further development of the presented arguments, which may lead to disproof or validation by the scientific community.»

(3) The handling editor (and the executive committee) concluded to allow final publication of the manuscript in ACP, in order to facilitate further development of the presented arguments, which may lead to disproof or validation by the scientific community.»

Steve offers anyone the chance to author and maintain editorial control of a scientific piece on his blog and I'm sure he'd be happy for you to present whatever arguments you feel need presenting..

I see the technical arguments presented as being a reasonable part of scientific debate.

One of our main quibbles with the way the climate change debate is presented is precisely that the IPCC «consensus» belies a broad range of nuanced positions and arguments — both scientific and political — as does the so - called sceptic camp.

«I (William: The Obama administration of course means all fellow warmists do not have patience for scientific discussion as the warmists can not win the argument based on science) don't have much patience for people who deny (William: deny in this context means to present facts that disprove the faulty hypothesis) climate change.»

Note that with this action, Gleick has essentially said that the way to get a more rational debate on climate, which he often says is his number one goal, was not to simplify or better present the scientific arguments but to steal and publish details on a think tank's donors....

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.

It is fine if you want to take issue with Trenberth's argument — but please present a scientific argument why you think warmer temperatures would not enhance hurricane precipitation.

Or Skeptical Science, the well - presented guide to scientific responses to «skeptic» arguments — http://www.skepticalscience.com/

The Royal Society - A guide to facts and fictions about climate change (PDF) «This document examines twelve misleading arguments (presented in bold typeface) put forward by the pponents of urgent action on climate change and highlights the scientific evidence that exposes their flaws.

@John Coochey You can prove that Monckton has a case by presenting a list of his most central claims that bring down the foundations of climate science as it concerns the specific issue of enhanced greenhouse effect due to fossil fuel greenhouse gas emissions, and an accompanying list of evidence directly relevant to these central claims, and an accompanying logical argument based upon the current state of scientific knowledge.

Rhetoric was out of favor in American legal education during the nineteenth century, as law schools adopted a truth - seeking «scientific» approach to teaching law that cared not for how a legal argument was presented, only for the truth of its contentions.