Sentences with phrase «scientific judgments making»

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.

Bottom line: The Endangerment Rule embodies «a scientific judgment made by IPCC, and then adopted by EPA, not supported by any record that this Court can review.

Not exact matches

Recall the judgment of Jay Olshansky, quoted above, that the scientific aim is to «make ourselves younger longer.»

Science itself is incapable of making moral judgments and it is not really too wild a step of the imagination to think of a situation where scientific knowledge is valued more highly than human lives.

When the proclaimers go beyond the Gospel and insist on the soundness of prudential and scientific judgments that they are not equipped to make, they weaken the authority of their witness.

But even so, they make clear that, to ferret out that je ne sais quoi that foreshadows outstanding scientific performance, nothing compares to subjective judgments of quality by experienced researchers.

A panel convened by the International Whaling Commission's scientific committee made the same points about the scientific value of Japan's whaling in the North Pacific as those contained in the ICJ judgment of the Antarctic catch.

While we can make assumptions and predictions based on other similar diets, the real judgment made with scientific arguments and based on evidence can not be given as of yet.

Each practitioner did his or her own thing when it came to vaccinating dogs and cats, and to make matters worse there wasn't much in the way of scientific research to base these judgments on.

Judith Curry wrote: «He voices concerns about the following threats to scientific integrity (see especially the last page): appealing to emotions; making personal (ad hominem) attacks; deliberately mischaracterizing an inconvenient argument; inappropriate generalization; misuse of facts and uncertainties; false appeal to authority; hidden value judgments; selectively leaving out inconvenient measurement results.»

I'm not the most qualified to make a judgment on their scientific work, but the two authors seem eager to attribute those measurments to an increase of solar irradiance since 1980, though no serious discussion about the other possible mechanisms (like atmospheric changes) is made in the paper.

[16] Two, in so doing, they are making a political and not a scientific judgment, though they're not always clear on this point.

In no way do my values suggest that debate should be curtailed: I merely insist that a scientific debate should take place in the scientific literature and that the public be put in a position where it can make an informed judgment about the voices that are opposing mainstream science on crucial issues ranging from climate change to vaccination.

The political system is how policy judgments are made and these judgments call for information, including scientific information.

In spite of the difficulties, we support Kantrowitz's proposal for the test establishment of an institution for making scientific judgments as described above.

I have read as much about this controversy as I ever intend to, and come to the firm conviction that I don't have the technical background and / or time required to make a scientific judgment on the issue one way or another.

The recognition of scientific expertise — the very stuff that enables scientists to build on prior results — at the same time makes scientific judgments inescapably personal and historical, undermining our deepest wishes for knowledge that might somehow be transcendent.»

«IPCC personnel survey the scientific literature and, in the course of writing a multi-thousand-page assessment report, make thousands of judgment calls as to what that literature tells........

It appears clear that fair amount of actual experience of doing science in the same or analogous fields is needed, before people can make reasonable judgments on the value of specific scientific approaches.

Not every scientific sounding proposition is equally plausible, and good journalism ought to make a judgment call.

In other words, much of the «overwhelming scientific data» that supposedly proves that humans are causing climate change actually amounts to judgment calls, made by those groping in the dark for something that might not even exist.

Guidance developed by Moss and Schneider (2000) for the IPCC on dealing with uncertainty describes two key attributes that they argue are important in any judgment about climate change: the amount of evidence available to support the judgment being made and the degree of consensus within the scientific community about that judgment.

I would suggest that in reality climate forecasting is not a wicked problem at all but that by using basic commonsense and sound scientific judgment perfectly useful forecasts can be made at a minute fraction of the cost.

Who is the «we» who should be making judgments on the anthropocene, even within the constrained scientific debate?

Generally, considering that technological applications of scientific models, developed to reduce uncertainty about real - world risks, have been widely successful for making life safer and more comfortable for an increasing fraction of the world population, why is there so little trust in the judgments of scientists who generate and test such models?