Sentences with phrase «scientific basis for the argument»

But a Lawyer who also appeared on the Current Affairs Programe Ernest Thompson questioned the scientific basis for that argument.

There is also little scientific basis for the argument that whales are competing with humans for food:

The lack of it indicates a complete lack of a scientific basis for the argument.

Not exact matches

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.

[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».

Atty. Zelda Soriano, Legal Counsel for the Petitioners discussed the grounds on which the appellate court based their favorable decision, which includes the main argument of the petitioners that the field testing is characterized by «serious scientific uncertainty with regard to its health and environmental effects.»

«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.

«This paper is a transparent effort to take the focus off the actual scientific debate and instead engage in race baiting, class baiting and other sociological devices to win a science argument,» said James Taylor, senior fellow for environment policy at the Chicago - based Heartland Institute.

As Meyer points out, he is not a biologist; so perhaps he could be excused for basing his scientific arguments on an outdated understanding of morphogenesis.

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.»

In your search for information you might want to question the sources and basis of the arguments you find in areas where there has already been proof of misleading or even scientific fraud.

Indeed I raised the funding issue specifically to contrast an argument based on dismissing him for that as opposed to pointing out why his scientific output was flawed.

An appeal to authority is never the basis for a «logical scientific argument.»

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

Given the magnitude of potential harms from climate change, those who make skeptical arguments against the mainstream scientific view on climate change have a duty to submit skeptical arguments to peer - review, acknowledge what is not in dispute about climate change science and not only focus on what is unknown, refrain from making specious claims about mainstream science of climate change such as the entire scientific basis for climate change has been completely debunked, and assume the burden of proof to show that emissions of greenhouse gases are benign.

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.

What I love most about «skeptics» is that they say that they don't doubt that ACO2 might warm the climate — they only have questions about the certainty related to the magnitude of the effect, but then they turn around and offer an argument like AK's that effectively argue that there is no scientific basis for reducing the uncertainties related to the magnitude of the effect.

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.

For all of these reasons, arguments against taking action to reduce the threat of climate change based upon scientific uncertainty fail to pass minimum ethical scrutiny.

What's missing from your argument is a scientific explanation for how incremental forcing power from CO2 absorption is amplified to be 4 times more powerful, on Watt by Watt basis, than power from the Sun.

Given the magnitude of potential harms from climate change, those who make skeptical arguments against the mainstream scientific view on climate change have a duty to submit skeptical arguments to peer - review, acknowledge what is not in dispute about climate change science and not only focus on what is unknown, refrain from making specious claims about the mainstream science of climate change such as the entire scientific basis for climate change that has been completely debunked, and assume the burden of proof to show that emissions of greenhouse gases are benign.

It is not enough for proponents of climate change policies to simply make counter scientific and economic «factual» arguments to the scientific and economic claims of the climate change policy opponents, advocates for climate policies need to help citizens understand what interests are responsible for the disinformation that is the basis for the false arguments made by opponents of climate change policies, why the tactics used the opponents of climate change policies are morally reprehensible, and why the arguments of those opposing climate change policies will continue to create huge injustices and immense suffering in the world.

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.

It's problematic when a scientist doesn't know that consensus is not a scientific fact or the basis for a scientific argument.

Since there is little scientific basis for CO2 causing warming (that is covered in the book) the strongest argument for Global Warming is gone.

«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.»

This brings us to your next argument: «There is no scientific basis for thinking that an increasing storm strength trend would limit itself permanently to cat 4s, and as noted below a good basis for thinking otherwise.»

Philip Johnson has flatly asserted that ID is an effort to give a scientific basis to creationism, and William Dembski, author of the spurious «specified complexity» argument, has said ID is «to enable God to receive credit for creation.»

The purpose of this set of arguments — which is the result of collaboration between the national associations for family / couple and systemic therapy — is to review the complex issue of the efficacy of these therapies, based on the scientific literature.