Sentences with phrase «scientific talk about»

So although there will be lots of scientific talk about measurements requiring adjusted parameters and newly discovered feedbacks and whatnot to explain all the changes, underneath it all this is still just a bidding game where people pick numbers which are big enough to be alarming so they'll get funded, but not too big lest people start to laugh.

Not exact matches

This is the first thing we talk about in Lean Startup because you can not do any of the techniques of Lean Startup — the rapid experimentation, the scientific approach, the broad development — none of it makes any sense and can't work unless you have a vision for what you are trying to accomplish.

In a scientific community that is starting to talk about fusion in terms of pennies per kilowatt - hour, General Fusion aims to build a cheaper alternative to the multi-billion-dollar reactor designs.

Keath also cites the show's use of music to inspire creative thought, and how it «always talks about something I've never heard of, some strange new discovery or scientific problem being solved in a weird way.»

Social psychologist Amy Cuddy struck a chord in the business world at TEDGlobal 2012 when she gave a talk about the scientific evidence behind power posing.

You're talking about the type of «evolution» that we always knew existed and to make matters worse you're bragging about the advancements made by INTELLIGENT HUMAN BEINGS which still don't even come close to the complication of macro evolution but still required thousands of years of scientific advancement and knowledge and a team of researchers with high iq's working aroudn the clock with microscopes.

There are more stories out of the bible that have been proven impossible and or wrong by science than have been shown to have any credibility... Of course I'm talking about actual science... not that christian science and creation «science»... which use scientific sounding things and jump to ridiculous unjustifyable conlusions, or that create incorrect premises and then make up answers to suit the questions.

Scientific theories about origins simply talk about how things came to be, not whether God was behind it.

Robert See, I find that anyone who denies what scientific evidence objectively reveals in favour of what they personally think must be correct without any evidence whatsoever must be operating out of the same harmful pride you're talking about.

The first half of the book I talk about, in a sense, the tension between the scientific worldview and a faith worldview.

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.

To many scientific thinkers, however, any talk about «extraneous» organizational principles operative in nature sounds somewhat mystical.

I want to share with you a scientific discovery that the Quran talked about 1400 years ago and Muslims were perplexed by the meaning of this particular verse.

Science and God go hand in hand but people that descredit the bible miss out on the scientific facts it talks about.

... why don't you talk like that about any scientific «theory» that a scientis comes up with?

Seems all the scientific community love to talk and explain about how much they know or think they know.

@Timothy, I'm not sure what definition of «Creationism» you are using, but the article is mainly talking about Young Earth Creationism, which is inconsistent with the scientific evidence available.

2) it is only a matter of time until we will have the scientific ability to do the kind of care you are talking about with the unborn (someone other than the mother caring & nurturing the child).

While I am not religious (I will call myself agnostic), and having an IQ well over genius levels, with scientific and mathematical tendencies, let me ask you a few questions, because what I see here are a bunch of people talking about «no evidence» or «proof» of God's existence, therefore He can't possibly exist, existential arguments, which are not arguments, but fearful, clouded alterations of a truth that can not be seen.

Even though Heidegger talks about such human phenomena as «fallenness» (which sounds remarkably like a Christian conception of sin), he repeatedly emphasizes that his account is scientific, not religious.

Not as a scientist, but as an ordinary person, without scientific pretensions, talking about what we all experience, I feel, listen, and look.

I jokingly replied, «Oh, OK, I thought we could talk about this in scientific, rational terms — but you seem to just want to work with your disgust brain.

This is not to say that nothing is known, but simply that caution must be used in talking about a reality which has only recently become the subject of scientific research.

When a believer bit.ches and moans about how if gay marriage is legalized, next is polygamy, in.cest and beastiality, (because for some reason all of those things are related) and we reject that because 1) beastiality is stupid because we're talking about two consenting adults 2) Polygamy is not really immoral but just incredibly tricky legally to design docu.ments that would make sense and 3) inc.est has some scientific ramifications and most of us can agree that as far as icky se.xual stuff goes, that ones a doozy.

Here is what one friend said about him, and remember that this is one scientific man of medicine talking about another:

I'm not talking about «neo-darwinism;» I'm talking about the evolutionary theory that the entire scientific community accepts as proven fact because it is proven fact, and because science reaffirms its factual status a couple of thousand times a day.

No, I wasted 5 hours listening to him rehash the same old and tired lines about why he believes and how everyone will burn in hell and how there is all this «real» scientific «evidence,» but the scientists and the media won't talk about it because they want us to turn against god.

The Voyager series threw out the word «quantum» about as much as Chopra does, and I suspect for the same reason: It sounds scientific - ish, and helps make it appear like they know what they're talking about.

But briefly, it is this: «orthodox» scientific uneasiness about the role of purpose or final causation in planetary evolution has its grounds partly in the fact that over the centuries most people who have tried to describe the role of purpose on Earth haven't known «what» they were talking about.

Scientific studies of global warming talk about the variation of the earths temperature over millions of years — oops.

His Evolution and the Christian Doctrine of Creation (Westminster Press, 1967) demonstrates the remarkable change that the use of the process conceptuality can make in talk about creation and its mode, and in the scientific corollaries of this world view.

Its a done deal, our universe had a beginning, so, talking about the universe having always been here, is scientific nonsense..

And we're not talking about mixing up a few new ingredients here and there; we delved into the scientific process of baking — the chemical properties and interactions that turn ingredients into delicious food — so that we could understand how to make flour combinations and baking mixes that would work this well.

This article is questionable as it has no links or actual references to the studies it talks about, like someone above has mentioned also there is no information on how the diagnosis were made, and lastly it does not take into account that celiac disease is NOT an allergy, it is an auto immune disease where the body attacks its own cells confusing them with gluten proteins, it is not about tolerance, I would not be trusting this information, do lots of research on your own from legitimate scientific sources before making a decision.

All she ever talked about was how hospital births and OBs are terrible, homebirth is best, vaccination hurts babies, all scientific studies are bought out by Big Pharma etc..

In the following 2011 TED talk, science reporter, author, and mother Annie Murphy Paul discusses the latest scientific evidence gathered from the fields of biology and psychology suggesting that some of our most important learning about the world happens before we are even born.

«I'm talking about information in the scientific world available to them to help them interpret the health risks associated with their blood PFOA levels.

I have no idea what your talking about, I've called for our Governor to answer with Scientific data the questions New Yorkers have about Fracking, and if the Science is right and questions are addressed in a rational manner we can decide as a State if Fracking is feasible.

Asked about including new rules for scientific research of guns in the bill, Emanuel suggested that was extraneous, comparing it to the distracting talk of «midnight basketball» programs the last time Congress tried to pass major gun control legislation in the early 1990s.

Ask plenty of questions when they arise, and don't be afraid to talk about your mistakes or any apprehension you have regarding your scientific or career goals,» says Crawford.

Scientific American executive editor Fred Guterl talks with Pres. Obama's science advisor, John Holdren, about climate science, space travel, the issue of reproducibility in science, the brain initiative and more.

In this episode, Scientific American editor - in - chief John Rennie talks about the September, single - topic issue of the magazine, the focus of which is Energy's Future: Beyond Carbon.

For Aguilar, who learned about the program from a professor, «I thought it would be a really great way to practice scientific communication and talk about conservation.»

U.C. Berkeley School of Law professor Franklin Zimring talks about his article, «How New York Beat Crime,» in the August issue of Scientific American

Scientific American magazine Editor in Chief Mariette DiChristina and editor Michael Moyer talk about the «World Changing Ideas» feature as well as other contents of the December issue.

Journalist Jeffrey Bartholet talks about his June Scientific American magazine article on the attempts to grow meat in the lab, and Editor in Chief Mariette DiChristina talks about the cover piece in the May issue on radical energy solutions

Michael Lemonick, opinion editor at Scientific American, talks about his most recent book, The Perpetual Now: A Story of Amnesia, Memory and Love, about Lonni Sue Johnson, who suffered a specific kind of brain damage that robbed her of much of her memory and her ability to form new memories, and what she has revealed to neuroscientists about memory and the brain.

According to Cowal, Piot's success is due in no small measure to his scientific credentials, which gives him immense credibility when talking about the damage done by HIV and AIDS.

Scientific American staffers Mark Fischetti and Robin Lloyd talk with podcast host Steve Mirsky about sessions they attended — including those about algae for energy, dissecting the astronomy in art, and attitudes about climate change — at the recent meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Scientific American editor Michael Moyer talks about the sneak preview he caught of IBM's Watson Jeopardy! - playing computer.