Sentences with phrase «scientific point without»

We can picture trees about to fall over a cliff, and that helps us understand the technical scientific point without bogging us down.

Not exact matches

My flat - world comment was to point out the illogic of believing something to be true without evidence, and using that belief to displace scientific theories that do have supportive evidence.

And one may, without being unpleasant about it, note that the mainstream media and the scientific establishment who beat the drums for the necessity of killing embryos in order, they said, to find cures for all kinds of illnesses, along with politicians who agitated for multibillion - dollar referendums in California, Missouri, and New Jersey, were, not to put too fine a point on it, dead wrong.

Just as in scientific discussion, which makes no sense without a presupposed truth, moral inquiry has no point apart from a presupposed objective right.

They include the «chilling effects» of libel suits, the perennial conflicts between property and access, the three out of four publishers who intervene in news decisions affecting their local markets, the advertisers» freedom to move their money to where their interests are, industry self - regulation in broadcasting and advertising, the backlash against conveying under duress (as in a hostage crisis) points of view that are never aired as directly without duress, the flareups of book banning and censorship of textbooks, the rout of the civil rights movement, the retreat from principles of fairness and equality (even where never implemented), the attack on scientific and humane teaching, the threat of self - appointed media watchdogs to also spy on teachers in the classroom, and the general vigor of ancient orthodoxies masquarading as neo-this and neo-that.

In a section on Lyotard in An Introductory Guide to PostStructuralism and Postmodernism, Madan Sarup points out how Lyotard explicitly contrasts scientific language, the language of verification and falsification, with narrative or story, «which certifies itself without having recourse to argumentation and proof.»

I will attempt («impossibile aut potius infinitum est «2) to provide a clear nontechnical summary of the scientific concepts from which the suggestion arises, but the point can be understood without that background.

The university rectors pointed out that lifelong, project - financed scientific careers without tenure were becoming increasingly important in Germany and worldwide and demanded that the legal regulations be adapted to reflect this.

«The gap between the scale of global ambitions and the scale of national offerings has been clear to the research community for a long time, but the Kyoto Protocol's focus on near - term emissions reductions... coupled with the scientific focus on long - term stabilization of climate at some unspecified point in the future has long given negotiators an out: they have been able to compare near - term actions without having to square them with long - term goals, rather like guys in a pub arguing about whose round it is while never actually having to settle up the bill,» Frame said in an email.

We've probably all used cold therapy (ice) for inflammation (injury or bruise) at some point in our lives without looking for scientific research before doing so.

While ashwagandha has been used for centuries without peer - reviewed studies backing up its benefits, today, we can actually point to scientific reasons why it helps with a myriad of problems from stress to insomnia.

Without fear or wavering, and recognizing the scientific implications, he constantly pointed out the harmful effects of sodium fluoride therapy and HRT as ways to treat osteoporosis.

Not to put too fine a point on it, the world's leading expert on grit is saying that educators who are substantially altering their work to better teach grit are doing so without much in the way of scientific backing or guidance.

But for those of us who follow Hansen, Spratt, Monbiot, and many others in the tail of a much more serious climate change story: non-linear, with positive feedbacks, tipping points, time lags and thresholds, we need a much more robust and focused scientific consensus now, without waiting years for the next IPCC reports, in time to win the crucial 08 election because the solution must be now, global and America must be a leader.

With the application of a variety of methods, many claims that would point to some danger about the climate have been shown to be without scientific merit.

Meaning that, even without the dampening effect of water vapour, a «tipping point» so often spoken about by alarmists like Al Gore, is actually a scientific impossibility.

Without wanting to impede discussion, surely scientific points are finally paramount on this thread and paramount of these is the question of whether dendroclimatology has any continuing value for reconstructions.

As I point out, the «scientific consensus on climate change» turns out, in most instances to be a «consensus without an object».

And yes, Steven, writing a scientific paper about something that is 0.005 % of human emissions, AND releasing a press release about it, without in either case pointing out it is a pathetically trivial 0.005 % of the emissions, is definitely hyping their study...

it isn't sneering at them without addressing their scientific points.

It perhaps needs to be pointed out that their self - imposed limitation of mitigation options to Emissions Control alone is actually arbitrary and without scientific basis?

The point I'm trying to make is the real possibility (supported by many scientific research mentioned above) that by the FF input, the system itself changes in such a way that it releases extra CO2 on its own, even without additional FF input, until a new stable system has evolved (one not preferable by humas..)

The end of the paper specifically points out the greater understanding of climate change by scientists who took part in the survey and those without scientific expertise:

To reaffirm the points raised by Richard on his XBOX, the hot spot forms a central plank of the AGW theory, without the hot spot AGW is just another scientific curiousity.

Plenty of people come to SkS and strongly argue their points without problem at all, even when they go against the scientific consensus position, as long as they play by the rules.

The paper on May 2 posted an editor's note saying that the Revkin article had pointed to one version of a Global Climate Coalition public «backgrounder» without knowing there was a subsequent backgrounder «that included language that conformed to the scientific advisory committee's conclusion.»