Sentences with phrase «scientific view on things»

Not exact matches

Instead, they find little stupid convoluted reasons to justify their actual views on the matter that reality - based science is actually a real cure to things we know about (thanks to the scientific method) when in fact religion offers nothing but wishful thinking.

Among other things she advocates crying, a 3 hourly feeding schedule if you BF or 4 hourly if you FF, overwrap babies with excessive bedding (which is what The Analytical Armadillo has been questioning recently), has some very misinformed views and ideas which are all based on her observations and opinions, rather than any that can be substantiated by scientific evidence and had some weird notions that babies can poo and vomit on cue to manipulate their parents.

Whatever your views on scientific advancements, there is one factor that is indisputable - they are advancing at an extraordinary rate - Radical Evolution offers four scenarios as to how things could pan out... (Reviewed by BookBrowse Review Team).

Whatever your views on scientific advancements, there is one factor that is indisputable - they are advancing at an extraordinary rate - Radical Evolution offers four scenarios as to how things could pan out: In the «Heaven» scenario genetic engineering leads to happier, healthier humans.

You can point the finger at all sorts of participants in this battle, but I believe (and we have been examining and discussing at length on this site for more than 8 years now) the principal drivers of the polarization are coming more from: (1) the corporate energy interests who are protecting their profits against regulation and other policies that would move the system away from fossil fuels, and using their clout in the political process to tie things up; (2) right - wing anti-government and anti-regulatory ideologues whose political views appear threatened by scientific conclusions that point toward a need for stronger policy action; (3) people whose religious or cultural identities appear threatened by modern science; and so forth.

People who want judicial answers to scientific questions are seeking one thing: to impose their views on the proper answers — by force of law — on those who don't share their views.

(Skeptical Science) When these politicians are asked about the basis for their positions on climate change, they almost always respond by saying such things as they «have heard that there is a disagreement among scientists» or similar responses that strongly suggest they have informed an opinion on climate change science without any understanding of the depth of the scientific evidence on which the scientific consensus view 0f climate change has been based.

The truth about Judith Curry, as I see it, is that she has a strong attraction for political dialogue, and refuses to see that the public debate over climate is fundamentally at odds with good science, as is the IPCC - sponsored «consensus» of climate alarmism, or in her case, of climate political - worryism (she seems deeply attached to helping bring about «reasonable» and «responsible» climate policies — whereas my view is that any and all such climate policies, now, are necessarily based upon incompetent, false science, are entirely the wrong thing to try to impose upon the people of the world, and need to be summarily thrown out, before one can even begin to have a dispassionate, competent scientific dialogue — as opposed to the political debate now being served up — on the state of climate science.).