Sentences with phrase «scientific talks in»

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 designIn 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 designin 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.»

As people start living in more sterile and urban environments their immune systems aren't exposed to microbes and don't know what to do when they encounter allergens or bacteria, making allergies and auto - immune diseases more prevalent, Scientific American's podcast Science Talk explains.

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.

He explains his scientific system in the understated but strong TED talk below.

Sometimes scientific findings of such head - slapping obviousness — talking on the phone makes you a worse driver and men generally favor large breasts, for example — that they make the average lay person wonder how anyone ever got funding to investigate the question in the first place.

For all those who are talking to themselves today, thinking that some supernatural deity is listening to them, please seek professional psychiatric help before you hurt someone or yourself in the name of your sky fairy, vote against others» rights, or promote your chosen flavor of insanity over the scientific method.

This Egan person is incompetant in that she does not recognize the CLINICAL / scientific reasons why people dwell on their memories nor does she seek to help them to move onto the next mental level — and I'm not talking spiritually here.

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.

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

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

In the interest of demonstrating its scientific, historical and theological sophistication, the church has talked in these terms instead of telling its storieIn the interest of demonstrating its scientific, historical and theological sophistication, the church has talked in these terms instead of telling its storiein these terms instead of telling its stories.

And now we get to watch while Creationists imprison Nye in a tower until he recants his sacreligous talk much in the way Galileo was imprisoned by the Church for supporting the scientific theory that the Earth revolves around the Sun rather than the universe revolving around the Earth.

Religious talk, like all talk, begins with ordinary language, but, depending on our purposes, it may quickly turn in directions more like the scientific or the poetic.

Now we may be looking at different problems here, or have different considerations in mind; but from where I view the matter, Bultmann's own statements seem to evade the crucial aspect of change in scientific thinking affecting the vision of our world; and his position, as amplified by Ogden's comments, seems to me simply not to square with the facts, as one may glean them from hearing scientists talk among themselves.

There is therefore a foundation for distinguishing scientific talk from theological talk in one and the same world.

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.

But if talking apes looks anything like what we've seen in the movies then we are fine with this scientific development taking as long as possible.

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.

It is not necessary for me to recount why Bultmann finds this incredibility in the form; suffice it to say that he is not committed to any particular scientific world - view, although Jaspers and others have charged him with this, but is simply stating that the contemporary man does not as a matter of fact think or talk in terms of such a form.

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.

Edward Wasserman, dean of the Graduate School of Journalism at the University of California — Berkeley, was quoted in Scientific American as saying, «Mainstream media have made a fortune teaching people the wrong ways to talk to each other, offering up Jerry Springer, Crossfire, Bill O'Reilly.

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.

I just got done talking to God and God told me that it is perfectly okay to believe in God and to actually recognize that math is a science that is legitimate and well founded in scientific and well founded facts.

Cobb, John B. Jr. (1983) «God and the scientific worldview» in Talking with God (eds.

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.

In addition to writing many books and scientific articles, Dr. Sears is a medical and parenting consultant to Baby Talk and Parenting Magazines.

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.

is pseudo scientific in the sense of specious — it's wrong to talk as if the structural deficit is something that can be measured like an item of a profit & loss statement.

«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.

Such meetings, it was agreed, are an essential element of the scientific process in any part of the world: «In spite of political differences, scientists can always get together and talk,» said Pastranin any part of the world: «In spite of political differences, scientists can always get together and talk,» said PastranIn spite of political differences, scientists can always get together and talk,» said Pastrana.

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 CarboIn 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 Carboin - chief John Rennie talks about the September, single - topic issue of the magazine, the focus of which is Energy's Future: Beyond Carbon.

It's a scary task and our scientific career depends on how well we talk in public.

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

Although these postdocs are active in research, the talk largely centered on moving scientific advances through the complex drug - development process to the marketplace and the clinic — and on the skills and strategies needed to build a career in industry.

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.

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.

You will be able to set up a professional profile, join groups belonging to our nine affiliated professional societies, discuss career issues, arrange to give a talk at a neighboring lab, establish a research collaboration, or locate a mentor or a protégé in your field of scientific interest.

Podcast host Steve Mirsky talks with human evolution expert Kate Wong about the small group of humans who survived tough times beginning about 195,000 years ago and gave rise to all of us, a story told in the cover article of the August issue of Scientific American, our 165th anniversary edition.

Editor in Chief Mariette DiChristina and issue editor Michael Moyer talk with podcast host Steve Mirsky about the September single - topic issue of Scientific American — endings in science.

For the Insights story, «Beating the Flu in a Single Shot, «appearing in the June 2008 Scientific American, Alexander Hellemans talked with Walter Fiers of Ghent University in Belgium.

Having identified a perpetual gap between empirical scientific information on the one hand and the way it's talked about in education and the public sphere on the other, Victoria Wibeck reveals the findings of a literature review examining 92 peer - reviewed studies.