Sentences with phrase «scientific problem of making»

Not exact matches

Scientific studies suggest that some of our neural pathways slow down at this time, which means it's tougher to evaluate problems and make good decisions.

Significant empirical evidence concerning the amount of drinking and of problem drinking among various social class groups was made available in 1963 when Harold A. Mulford reported on a scientific survey of a cross section of the non-institutionalized adult population in the United States.

3 The obvious critical point to make of Whitehead here is to indicate that his statement that science is true for each percipient is to claim to know something of the experience, qua scientific, of each percipient, and hence to have admitted an element of transcendence into the very statement of the problem.

So if you ever want to see if we have a problem in policing related to race, pay related to gender or a problem with violence against transgender individuals, in all of those cases it becomes impossible to make a scientific argument — because if those categories are never recorded in official documents, you can never do the data collection to show what's true.

I have advocated before that one way to mitigate problems with null - hypothesis significance testing is for editors of scientific journals to employ «results blind» decision making in determining whether to publish and make it be known that they are doing so.

Learning about problems early allows affected people to arrange their finances, seek out clinical trials and otherwise make plans for future care, said Heather Snyder, senior director of medical and scientific operations for the Alzheimer's Association.

Though it remains unclear how the litter made it so far north, it is likely to pose new problems for local marine life, the authors report on the online portal of the scientific journal Polar Biology.

The massive projects needed now — such as devising a model of climate change detailed enough to be truly predictive or batteries efficient enough to compete with gasoline — can not wait or depend on chancy funding, he believes.He added that a strong national commitment to goal - centered basic science could help solve other important problems by drawing America's talented young people into scientific work and providing them with better opportunities for aspiring researchers to build careers with a realistic chance of making both a significant scientific contribution and a decent living.

The implicit lesson for the modern world remains the same: religious faith should not shield the eyes of the faithful from solving problems whose solutions are made clear by the use of observation, the basis of scientific analysis.

A unit on the Philosophy of Science and the History of Science (taught by the professor or a visiting colleague) could benefit all inferences made of scientific studies as well as expose students to alternative ways of assessing particular problems.

«The stigma around this disease makes it difficult to address obesity as a public health problem,» said George A. Bray, M.D., of Louisiana State University's Pennington Biomedical Research Center in Baton Rouge, La., who chaired the task force that developed the Scientific Statement.

Fortunately, Chetty's study provides some ideas for how we could begin solving the problem of making our scientific community more diverse.

He was able to translate a clinical problem into a basic scientific question: how proteins are made in the body and how the production of proteins is controlled?.

Although tremendous scientific progress has been made since the inception of fusion energy research in the United States and internationally, fusion's research frontiers remain replete with open problems of critical importance.

There is a scientific way of going about solving these problems which allows your cat to make a behavioral choice.

The casual issuance and acceptance of accusations of scientific misconduct in that article reveals the real problem with making progress on modifying our habits to reduce our unacceptably large contribution to climatic instability.

a) they don't believe the premise of man - made climate change: they don't think scientific data collected to date is adequate to prove conclusively that any type of man - made event can result in either the recent fluxuations in climate or the anticipated kinds of drastic climate change, therefore CO2 control would be ineffective at solving the problem b) they don't believe CO2 alone is responsible: they think other variables are as or more likely to be the catalysts or causes for the scientific data collected to date on climate change therefore CO2 control would be ineffective at solving the problem c) they believe government efforts to curb CO2 emissions will fail resulting in an unprecedented waste of money and worse economic conditions.

It was aimed more at reinforcing the resolve of the majority in the public and the policy - making community who, betting on the scientific consensus, are ready to move forward with a serious approach to dealing with the problem but are being slowed down by the ill - founded skepticism of a minority.

Thank you for speaking on this subject and making it fundamentally clear what the real problem is, not whether AGW is true or not, but whether bad science and serious research misconduct of a few can and will fundamentally undermine the scientific enterprise of many if it is not addressed.

She also says that scientists need «a code of conduct for communicating uncertainty», and that «institutions should be incentivized to support debates at professional meetings», and Social science research is needed to analyze ways of incorporating scientific understanding with all of its uncertainties into complex decision making related to wicked problems.

This is particularly true on issues where waiting to resolve scientific uncertainty makes the problem worse or waiting makes the problem harder to solve, clear attributes of climate change.

Its findings are that there were problems; that comments attributed to David King — the UK's chief scientific advisor at the time — were not made by him, even though they were; that the IPCC had not been given sufficient time to respond to comments made about it, even though it had been; and that Professor Carl Wunsch had been misled as to the nature of the program, even though he hadn't (and isn't that what investigative journalists are supposed to do?).

The decision had been made for a top down regulatory approach, and the reality of the political body, not the scientific, was the problem.

Everyone keeps making the same mistakes over and over — merging the scientific definition of a problem with identifying the solution of the problem.

I'm against Ocean Acidification theory because I've done loads and loads of background reading... about the lack of credible scientific evidence that it represents any kind of problem... in the eyes of all those undecideds who can't make up their mind whether they agree with me on climate science or whether I'm talking bollocks...»

The problem is when fossil fuel industries funnel money to the policymakers themselves and the thinktanks that provide them with information, which is for the purpose of favoring those industries when policies are made or blocked, especially if built on the dubious scientific standards of their thinktanks.

The first issue is why a 25 - year delay in responding to increasingly stronger scientific warnings of the danger of human - induced climate change has made the problem much more threatening.

Nonetheless, both of these potential problems are in keeping with the main point of this essay, which is that the science is not «settled» and there is actually quite a lot of debate over man - made global warming theory within the scientific community.

A problem with this theory is that much of the criticism of man - made global warming theory is definitely not «anti-science», and seems to be based on careful consideration of the scientific data.

Though scientific consensus must always be open to responsible skepticism given: (a) the strength of the consensus on this topic, (b) the enormity of the harms predicted by the consensus view, (c) an approximately 30 year delay in taking action that has transpired since a serious climate change debate began in the United States in the early 1980s, (d) a delay that has made the problem worse while making it more difficult to achieve ghg emissions reductions necessary to prevent dangerous climate change because of the steepness of reductions now needed, no politician can ethically justify his or her refusal to support action on climate change based upon a personal opinion that is not supported by strong scientific evidence that has been reviewed by scientific organizations with a wide breadth of interdisciplinary scientific expertise.

The problem is that because kombuch is so inexpensive to make (about $ 1 / gallon), there's no money in it to support an actual scientific study of its benefits.

The reasons for that are many: the timid language of scientific probabilities, which the climatologist James Hansen once called «scientific reticence» in a paper chastising scientists for editing their own observations so conscientiously that they failed to communicate how dire the threat really was; the fact that the country is dominated by a group of technocrats who believe any problem can be solved and an opposing culture that doesn't even see warming as a problem worth addressing; the way that climate denialism has made scientists even more cautious in offering speculative warnings; the simple speed of change and, also, its slowness, such that we are only seeing effects now of warming from decades past; our uncertainty about uncertainty, which the climate writer Naomi Oreskes in particular has suggested stops us from preparing as though anything worse than a median outcome were even possible; the way we assume climate change will hit hardest elsewhere, not everywhere; the smallness (two degrees) and largeness (1.8 trillion tons) and abstractness (400 parts per million) of the numbers; the discomfort of considering a problem that is very difficult, if not impossible, to solve; the altogether incomprehensible scale of that problem, which amounts to the prospect of our own annihilation; simple fear.

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.

If the University received such records as part of the supposed misconduct investigation, then they could easily resolve the problem by making them available to the scientific community and to readers.

Sir John Houghton made the hockey stick into an icon for the climate change problem, which became of substantial importance in the marketing of climate change to the public; therefore, challenges to the hockey stick, while maybe not being of particular scientific importance are highly important in the public debate on climate change.

If Pearce had been given a copy Gavin's email, it exonerates him of the charge of not getting it straight from the horses mouth, but only at the expense of eliminating the excuse of ignorance for the rather nuanced interpretation of Gavin's motives (which were made quite explicit in the email, namely that he didn't attend because disagrement about the scientific issues was not at the heart of the problem — I would agree with him).

On the contrary, global warming is a problem for which the world is rather well equipped to make informed policy, thanks to the IPCC reviewing the best available scientific knowledge, and thanks to ensembles of hindcasting - capable models constrained by (real - world!)

Explains that U.S. climate modelers will need to address an expanding breadth of scientific problems while striving to make predictions and projections more accurate

They include those items ignored, glossed over, or deliberately misrepresented; projections are consistently wrong; the science has not advanced, a 2007 paper in Science by Roe and Baker concludes; «The envelope of uncertainty in climate projections has not narrowed appreciably over the past 30 years, despite tremendous increases in computing power, in observations, and in the number of scientists studying the problem»; and claims of impending disasters that simply do not make scientific sense.

You argue a statement I've made is counter-intuitive, yet what you quote is my argument to the lack of scientific research demonstrating how it is government is the best solution to deal with this really scary climate change being sold by activists and an alarming number of those activists being funded by the very governments that would be empowered to handle «global problems».

Judith — you started # 2 in this series with «The significance of the debate over the hockey stick and «hide the decline» is the following: Sir John Houghton made the hockey stick into an icon for the climate change problem, which became of substantial importance in the marketing of climate change to the public; therefore, challenges to the hockey stick, while maybe not being of particular scientific importance are highly important in the public debate on climate change.»