Sentences with phrase «scientific sure thing»

Today's scientific sure thing is tomorrow's junk science.

Not exact matches

And, when she describes that change, what she ends up describing is what already more - or-less exists, namely: mainline christianity, embracing the reformed and the catholic, the scientific and the traditional, which has been doing (never perfectly, to be sure) the sort of deep thinking, social justice, and disciplined prayer that she talks about continually while the evangelicals were breaking off to do their own thing (the thing she seems to want them to stop doing) throughout the twentieth century.

I'm sure those things are easily explained with your amazing scientific understanding.

One thing is for sure: While you may not be able to talk in scientific terms about what makes a basketball shoe the greatest, you still know it when you see it.

«Science has done a bad job over time of being diverse and doing all the things it should to ensure that opportunities or scientific careers are equal, and making sure that science itself benefits from all communities,» Berman admits.

I mean, one of the things that I've tried to do over these last four years and will continue to do over the next four years is to make sure that we are promoting the integrity of our scientific process; that not just in the physical and life sciences, but also in fields like psychology and anthropology and economics and political science — all of which are sciences because scholars develop and test hypotheses and subject them to peer review — but in all the sciences, we've got to make sure that we are supporting the idea that they're not subject to politics, that they're not skewed by an agenda, that, as I said before, we make sure that we go where the evidence leads us.

[Response: I'm sure John was referring to comments that lack any reasonable scientific basis, or had no scientific interest, or deal with things that have been extensively rebutted already.

Nearly everyone I have encountered who dismisses AGW is either pretty ignorant about doing science (that's fine, I am sure they are good at other things - it's unrealistic to believe scientific literacy could be universal), or are just plainly unable to contemplate or accept the changes required in the organisation of human affairs (even though these changes would also happen in the absence of global warming), or are just full of anti-environmental politics for various delusional reasons of their won.

I'm not sure it was the larger point you were trying to make, but the thing that jumps out at me from this post is the difference in reactions between Climate Science (TM) and other scientific groups.

Sure, there are things I disagree with, but that's inherent to scientific progress.

Like any single scientific study, Wednesday's results aren't a sure thing, but they're much closer to a complete answer than anything we've had so far.

As for future impact, lead author Andy Ridgwell states with typical scientific understatement, «We can't say things for sure about impacts on ecosystems, but there is a lot of cause for concern.»