Sentences with phrase «scientific claims about»

Scientific claims about the health effects of a particular nutrient on a product label are not considered nutrient content claims and therefore not pr

The problem here is the tendency to reduce all these complexities into a simple litmus test of whether or not someone believes orthodox scientific claims about the causes and consequences of climate change.

Why do we accept certain scientific claims about climate change but are doubtful about others?»

«I had noted that Pielke Sr. loves to cherry - pick climate data over short time spans to make misleading scientific claims about climate.

Kim Cobb begins her arguments with the following false scientific claims about what people believe:

Scientific claims about a robust correlational link between climate variability and civil war do not hold up to closer inspection.

And I'm not so sure that supporting dubious scientific claims about Global Warming, driven by (manmade) CO2 concentration is the best way for NASA to regain its lost credibility.

In particular, what is it telling us about the social status and perceived authority of scientific claims about climate change?

Today, we have people that barely passed high school biology, if they even took high school biology, make scientific claims about the world we live in.

Not exact matches

There is endless scientific evidence that contradicts just about everything the bible claims.

What about those who doubt the scientific basis of these claims, or who simply don't like what is being done to the scientific method they were taught to apply and uphold?

So far I answered all your questions so your claim that «there is NOTHING scientific about Genesis «is false.

Islam mentioned this for the longest time and as you can imagine, at a time when people had no access or means to verify those claims (people like yourself, opted to disbelief and argue about the existence of God) but now that those scientific «discoveries» became realities and the same as supported by the Quran (that was sent to Prophet Mohammed, Peace and Blessings be upon him), from God), it only solidifies Islam as the true religion of God.

Some facts in Bible indeed can't be explained by the science as we know it but it doesn't change the fact that «there is NOTHING scientific about Genesis» is a false claim.

What about the scientific evidence favoring the Medjugorie visionaries who claim to see the Blessed Virgin Mary?

This is the scientific method, which is used to rationalize and be skeptical about certain «truth» claims made by people in this world (whether it be religion, homeopathy, bigfoot, etc...)

This kind of consideration has even led some philosophers to urge the acceptance of scientific claims where acceptance involves no belief about the truth or probable truth of the statement itself.

Yet this claim likewise makes no sense — for the simple reason that scientific method by definition has nothing to say about God, meaning, values or purpose.

The myth of scientific superrationality thus emerges as the principal obstacle to seeing that the quality of its underlying metaphysical imaginary (the complex of metaphorics that roughly guide metaphysical reasoning about what there is and how it hangs together) is what ultimately provides a natural philosophy with whatever comprehensiveness and adequacy it can lay claim to.

He claims that every major scientist from about 1250 to about 1650, four hundred years during which the modern scientific movement was taking form, considered himself also a theologian.

I don't know where you heard that «science can't accept that god always existed» because no scientific claims have ever been made about god.

Considering that you keep making assumptions about whether I would understand it, without actually providing any of the «proof» you claim you can come up with, I'm starting to think that you being «very happy and productive part» of the scientific world, just means you are an administrative assistant who knows how to copy and paste.

When Dulles and Schonborn and many others make claims about the limitations of scientific method, this is the kind of background they are coming from.

They have no scientific evidence to support their claims yet they have taken children out of school to proclaim their «message» and now they're traipsing about telling others to do the same!

This may be about to change, however, thanks to new scientific research that claims cheese to be one of nature's «naturally functional» whole foods, with no negatives either from fat or sodium content.

The CRA claims that «a continuing series of inexact scientific reports and inaccurate media accounts about high fructose corn syrup and matters of health and nutrition have... increased consumer uncertainty.»

Anyone who believes the oft repeated claims that homebirth midwifery is about scientific evidence is at best naive, and at worst a fool.

• A requirement that any claim made about a product used in marketing on websites, to health professionals and in any other way is independently evaluated if it is not in line with currently agreed scientific opinion in the UK;

For example, there is a global trend at the moment towards adding probiotics to formula and for many years here companies have made claims about prebiotics in formula, which scientific authorities say have no benefit in formula.

They also found that «most health claims about supplementation of omega - 3 long - chain polyunsaturated fatty acids in various diseases in children and adolescents are not supported by convincing scientific data.»

The claim about Bt176 maize made in Michael Meacher's article, therefore, has no factual, legal or scientific basis.

She is the author of an upcoming cover story in Scientific American MIND on this topic, and spoke about the Coke claims with Scientific American on Monday.

But this is the second time that his group has published such a claim in just over a year, opening up a philosophical debate about where the finish line really is, and if Danishefsky has met the lofty goal that he — and the scientific community — have set for themselves.

There are genuine scientific questions over some of the more extreme claims made about the dangers of passive smoking and the best strategies to reduce smoking rates, but a few researchers who have voiced them have seen their reputations smeared and the debate stifled.

The authors of Numerical Recipes, indeed, claim in particular that «If all scientific papers whose results are in doubt because of bad (random number generation programs) were to disappear from library shelves, there would be a gap on each shelf about as big as your fist.»

Scientific narratives used to be cast in the past tense, about what had been accomplished; now the storytelling is in the future tense to raise venture capital (or, in the case of «Heroes,» in what might be called the past imperfect to advance a patent claim).

To be sure, the exact details of the algorithm can not be evaluated because the dating sites have not yet allowed their claims to be vetted by the scientific community (eHarmony, for example, likes to talk about its «secret sauce»), but much information relevant to the algorithms is in the public domain, even if the algorithms themselves are not.

Respondents claim that even though they are Government contractor employees, and even though they are working with highly expensive scientific equipment, and even though the Government is seeking only information about drug treatment and information from third parties that is standard in background checks, and even though the Government is liable for damages if that information is ever revealed, and even though NASA's Privacy Act regulations are very protective of private information, NASA's background checks are unconstitutional.

«Vaccines can be blamed for illness without scientific proof,» read many headlines about the European Court of Justice's (ECJ's) ruling on the case of a French man who claimed that a hepatitis B vaccine caused his multiple sclerosis (MS).

The public, press and policy makers have been repeatedly told that three claims have widespread scientific support: Global temperature has risen about a degree since the late 19th century; levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased by about 30 % over the same period; and CO2 should contribute to future warming.

He has repeatedly claimed that this constitutes a peer - reviewed scientific publication about climate change, but the fact is that society newsletters are not typically «peer - reviewed» in any normal sense, and the newsletter editor appended a notice on Monckton's article saying it was not peer - reviewed.

The public, press and policy makers have been repeatedly told that three claims have widespread scientific support: Global temperature has risen about a degree since the late 19th century; levels of CO2 [carbon dioxide] in the atmosphere have increased by about 30 percent over the same period; and CO2 should contribute to future warming.

Drinking enough water and adding a little Vitamin C boost are good ideas, but they aren't magic and there is no scientific backing to some of the claims made online about the benefits of lemon water:

As I travel around the country, facilitating community conversations about the topics in my book Mind Over Medicine: Scientific Proof That You Can Heal Yourself, many patients have expressed frustration with their doctors, claiming that they feel unheard.

While she makes some good points about eating too much unfermented soy, she feels a need to promote that myths that individuals on a plant based diet do not get enough vitamins, minerals and protein and of course claims there are not scientific studies that indicate saturated fat and cholesterol contribute to heart disease.

Again, we need to be cautious about accepting these claims until they've gone through the legitimate scientific channels and people have had a chance to review this research.

Scientific studies have been inclusive about its effectiveness in direct consumption, and its claimed benefits are yet to be fully corroborated.

A big part of that is being very skeptical of any claims about scientific proof of effectiveness.

I understand that Bikram tries to talk about scientific proof that claims how Bikram does specific things to benefit your body.

We often hear people talking about how the Paleo diet is lacking scientific evidence to support its health claims.