Sentences with phrase «scientific principles does»

Your lack of knowledge of scientific principles doesn't surprise me at all, and helps proves Mr. Nye's point.

Not exact matches

By accepting unfalsifiable ideas, you're already admitting that scientific evidence doesn't matter to you because you've already forsaken the principle core of science, the need for ideas to be falsifiable.

If you apply basic principles of logical reasoning, scientific inquiry, and rational thinking, you would come to the conclusion — God does NOT exist!

Once you decided not to consider any facts or scientific principles that did not agree with your a priori beliefs, your «investigation» became useless.

The principle difference that most people don't understand though is that «scientific theory» means that it's a hypothesis that's been repeatedly tested and supported with multiple pieces of evidence through many different trials and approaches.

Why anyone could think that God doesn't use scientific principles to do what he does is beyond me.

What makes you think that God does not work with scientific principles or that he actually knows a few things you don't?

To me, the illogical choice is to believe that G * d exists and that He did not create a set of rules (i.e. scientific principles) to govern how the universe operates.

The notions of physical reality and emergence that we have advanced in the previous chapters, unlike those of scientific materialism and mechanism, do not preclude in principle our attributing a teleological aspect to the universe.

Don't be so sure that evolution is such a solid scientific principle; you may not realize this, but the theory has been extensively debunked, see http://www.discovery.org/a/2640

I don't always explain the full scientific principles to my children, but watching and taking part in activities like these really does encourage children start to question why things happen, and the concepts we introduce will become start to make more sense to them as time goes on.

Nevertheless there is a great deal which can be done in the home to teach scientific principles to older children and teenagers.

These developmental «cut - offs» especially for sleeping arrangements have nothing to do with established empirical - based principles, or scientific findings about when infants must sleep alone or learn to «settle» themselves or risk suffering some permanent psychological or cognitive disorder or handicap.

We do not oppose either, based upon sound scientific wildlife management principles if it is done legally and in accordance with the standards of good sportsmanship.

«The updating of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 was an important step forward in helping to replace the use of animals in medical research and in enshrining the 3Rs principles of reduction, refinement and replacement of animal experimentation in law but it is clear that much work remains to be done.»

Scientific truth does not change when governments change, and neither do the principles of human rights,» he said.

How Things Work by Neil Ardley (Dorling Kindersley, # 14.99, ISBN 0 7513 0215 5) does better than most because there is an extra dimension: it doesn't tell, it shows, By following some simple step - by - step experiments the child discovers scientific principles, including how levers work and why skyscrapers don't fall down.

The principle holds that regulators should take action if scientific evidence strongly suggests but does not yet fully prove that a production facility or pollutant may jeopardize public health.

The role of funding agencies in the enforcement of the principles of research integrity Presenter: Paulo Sérgio Lacerda Beirão, Global Research Council and Ciências Agrárias, Biológicas e da Saúde do Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq), Brazil Scientific integrity in the context of international research collaborations Presenter: Gordon McBean, International Council for Science, Canada Recent research integrity in Asia - Pacific region and the world Presenter: Makoto Asashima, Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, Japan Moving research integrity to a global agenda Presenter: David Stonner, National Science Foundation, USA

We've all had the feeling where it seems like we're the only one in the room who doesn't know about an important scientific principle.

An awful embarrassment awaits the British if they do not declare for a republic based on verifiable laws and principles, both political and scientific.

Based on a solid foundation of scientific training principles, it will train your dog to do more of the behaviors you want — sit, down, come, walk, etc. and STOP the behaviors you don't want — jumping, barking, chewing, etc..

(You would really then need to go on to explain that consensus does tend to determine correct scientific practice, but explaining the principles of scientific reasoning and research to the public at large would make science articles about 10 times as long as they currently are.)

What observations do you offer that would encourage this other than claiming the last 3 years (2005 hottest) or last twelve (’98 hottest) equal global cooling when they are all among the hottest years in the last 2 million (a fundamentally flawed assertion that shows 100 % ignorance, or willful disregard, of basic scientific principles, namely that a three — twelve year period is not a long - term trend, but is variability until proven otherwise.)

I just find it incredibly sad that scientists who specialize in this field could not come up with more than a single, somewhat vague, scientific principle to prove you wrong in your statement that the world probably doesn't need leatherbacks.

I think he's downplaying the scientific case, built on basic climate principles («everything we do know»), for long - term warming, but his general point is worth exploring.

The only reason it works that way is because the populace too doesn't grasp scientific thinking and scientific principles (let alone facts).

I suppose, on reading it again, that you could construe what I said to mean that we should not act if we have full scientific certainty... but that's obviously not what I meant, because if we have full scientific certainty (as I pointed out in my examples of seat belts and condoms) we don't need the precautionary principle at all.

for this tour de force on all of the ways «climate modelers» do not adhere to scientific principles.

Philosophically, pragmatically and sustainably a society based solely on profit is fading so how do we transition to an economy that is built on scientific principles and societal preservation and expansion?

For example, understanding that global warming is not a proven science and that there is no circumstantial evidence for global warming alarmism — which is why we see goats like political charlatans like Al Gore showing debunked graphs like the «hockey stick» to scare the folks — and, not understanding that climate change the usual thing not the unusual thing and that the climate change we observed can be explained by natural causes is the only thing that really separates we the people from superstitious and ignorant government - funded schoolteachers on the issue of global warming... that and the fact that global warming alarmists do not believe in the scientific method nor most of the principles upon which the country was founded.

Rhymes with Scientology, if you don't agree with them then you are just not thinking «clearly», they hold the Absolute Truth, doubters need to be open - minded and willing to be presented with the Truth, it's all based in solid scientific principles... And one way or another, everyone has to shell out whatever money is needed in service of the Truth.

Peter, thanks for answering my question, and I think we are in agreement on principle to both the questions: we both want open and transparent science to feed into public policy making, and we do not want personal attacks on scientists, with criticisms on the science and scientific process being acceptable and personal insults being unacceptable.

One might have added that even if one didn't have a grasp of the 95 % confidence threshhold for «statistical significance» that the broader principle — absence of evidence is not evidence of absence — ought to have kicked in, at least for those claiming to stand within the scientific paradigm.

For its true... whenever I look at the quality of evidence and argument and general disregard for scientific principles advanced by many climatologists, then I really don't find it at all satisfactory.

It doesn't mean that I can't grasp scientific principles, in fact I had a college level vocabulary when I was in the 7th grade, and my reading comprehension has always been quite high so I understand, sometimes quite a bit, more than the average person does when I read something.

But here's the bottom line: It is not ethical — it violates all the principles of scientific honesty — to withhold from the public evidence that doesn't support the hypothesis to avoid creating «doubt.»

What you believe would be «interesting and scientific» again does not address the point of principle to which Steven Mosher alludes, ie it is better for both science AND for trust in science amongst the lay public, that data be shared regardless of the perceived motives of the requesting person / body.

The value of trying to falsify predictions remains a valuable principle of scientific progress in my books — especially if can be done without bias and prejudice (quite a lot that we could discuss).

For political topics (about what «should» be done) that is often a laudable principle, but not so for scientific topics (about what «is»).

It like, when it comes to questioning the statistical expertise and scientific bona fides of Mann and his sycophants and their apocryphal «hockey stick,» the Left demands that skeptics should employ the principles of the scientific method before they are even entitled to an opinion about whether rotten fish really do stink.

But even if one believes such actions are justified in principle I don't think it is appropriate for someone in Gleick's position to do what he did because if scientists are seen to do anything which undermines their personal integrity then it can cast doubt in the public's eye about their scientific work and that of their colleagues and makes it harder for them to counter the anti-scientific antics of the fake skeptics, although I would hope that the stinking hypocrisy of the latter would also be apparent to the public.

His concern that students will be mislead by the idea that there is no scientific certainty about the best way to proceed politically does not credit those students with the ability to understand that political direction has been achieved through the application of the precautionary principle.

The IPCC in its statement on «PRINCIPLES GOVERNING IPCC WORK» says nothing on data but does say: «The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio - economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human - induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.»

Why do those who perform climate studies first dispose of all scientific knowledge and principles?

I do not feel that you should be reluctant to state, «I will confess here that I don't believe computer models really prove anything» It should be a stated principle for scientific research that computer models, like statistics, are valuable tools to guide the researcher.

They know they are applying scientific principles to their lands and so long as we don't tell them that the scientist probably had dreadlocks, a tie dyed shirt and a PDC [Permaculture Design Certificate], then everything will be just fine.»

Either what we are working with stacks up or it doesn't applying sound principles of scientific investigation.

I don't challenge the principle that methods, codes, data, etc., should be available for scrutiny if needed, and that In specific cases, this may be critical to our ability to interpret scientific findings, at least in the short run.

Stoddart further stated that a scientific consensus does not exist on whether behavior - detection principles are reliable for counter-terrorism purposes.