Sentences with phrase «than scientists not»

Not exact matches

Suddenly, the freshness rating of a film became more important than audience interest in terms of success — even though data scientists have found that the score doesn't affect the box office.

As Stulberg tells Science of Us, behavior scientist K. Anders Ericsson discovered in the 1990's that what separates great performers — musicians, artists, chess players, even physicians — from everyone else was not that they practiced more than their peers.

According to a blog posted today by LinkedIn senior data scientist Mathieu Bastian, people who call out skills on their LinkedIn profiles receive an average of 13 times more profile views than those who don't.

Globally, we spend more than $ 100 billion on bottled water, which according to the Mayo Clinic and dozens of other scientists and public health experts is nutritionally equivalent (if not superior) to tap.

The scientist also predicted that recharging infrastructure would not prove a barrier as it was no more expensive to install than traditional gas stations.

According to a scientist involved in the study, anyone who took part in more than 28 hours of domestic or caretaking work without pay — 28 hours per week is the Australian average — would not be able to handle more than 39 hours of paid work weekly before experiencing problems associated with poor health.

When thinking about the Pentagon's technological research, it's more pertinent to wonder what its scientists aren't into than what are they into.

But, that's because research scientists don't make much more than $ 75,000!

GFI's innovation department has two primary areas of focus — firstly, encouraging scientists and entrepreneurs to join the plant - based and cultured meat industries, and secondly, supporting the ongoing success of existing companies in the industry.26 They have assembled a list of potential companies based on what they believe are promising ideas that have not been capitalized on, 27 and they have developed a list of more than 220 entrepreneurs and scientists, many of whom take part in monthly video calls led by GFI.28 In the last year, they have had some success in assisting in the founding of a plant - based meat company in India, Good Dot, and a plant - based fish company in the U.S., SeaCo.29 The companies have both raised millions in venture capital and are making progress towards competition with animal products.30 Although venture capitalist funding is a good indication that the companies themselves will be successful, and while the companies might not exist without GFI, it is unclear what portion of the responsibility for the companies» outcomes should be attributed to GFI.

I'm just saying that if some scientists believe in one pholosophy, and disagree with others who believe in a different philosophy doesn't mean anything other than a difference in beliefs.

In advancing these theories they disregard factors universally admitted by all scientists — that in the initial period of the «birth» of the universe, conditions of temperature, atmospheric pressure, radioactivity, and a host of other catalytic factors were totally different than those existing presently, including the fact that we don't know how single atoms or their components would bind and consolidate, which involved totally unknown processes and variables, as single atoms behave far differently than conglomerations of atoms.

And they worried continually at what he might come up with, as in his remark in 1981 that «trees cause more pollution than automobiles» (a claim that scientists more than two decades later discovered to be not entirely off - base).

If you did, and you don't come back with it being anything other than unproven, then you are not a scientist.

This can not be argued and no scientist will ever support scientism other than a philosophical application or non falsifiable extrapolation of a valid scientific principal or theory.

Labella don't mind at all and i'll say it again, he's more of a scientist than the hatetheists on this blog.

Yes because liberals and athiest Never rationalize anything like, abortion is stopping a beating heart but nobody wants to call it murder or republicans hate blacks yet under Obama and liberal aministration blacks are fairing worse than ever, or that scientist don't know how the world was created and that we came from slime but there's no proof.

If your scientists can't make the simplest form of life, and your neo-Darwinian evolution theory is seriously flawed, it would seem that your faith in blind chance should be much weaker than it is.

This guy wasn't even a research scientist or physicist, so why his opinion would count as anything other than the misinformed blathering of a scientist wannabe is beyond any of us.

About 59 years later, Darwin published his theory and other than a bit of a rough start, scientists (other than those half dozen) have not looked back.

But he said most scientists viewed Christianity as a fraud, which means more than half, and you can't disprove that with a dozen quotes unless there are less than two dozen scientists, which I don't believe is the case.

To disprove his statement about «most» scientists, which is more than half, you would need the results of some poll or survey, not a few cherry - picked quotes you picked because they support your side.

Like the religious objectors, scientists wishing to separate faith and reason — a minority, but a noisy one — claim that nature, which they often think of as self - subsistent rather than as created, can not be reconciled to God, whose existence they often deny.

The existence of God can not be proven or disproven by scientists, though many have tried, and their desparate need to convince those of us who do believe that God does not exist is more than amusing.

To the Christian, such an atheistic approach to human nature is essentially inhuman, since men do not exist without a fundamental religious vocation any more than they exist in this life without physical needs, individuality or communities, all aspects of the human condition eagerly studied by social scientists.

It isn't true that scientists are trying to change the beliefs of others, but rather they are observing and testing natural phenomena with tomes of evidence telling the rational person that the notion of a deity as a NATURAL being rather than SUPERNATURAL one is absurd and silly.

This is why scientists can not «prove» the evolutionary development of the eye (and we know that the real chance of finding fossil evidence is much lower than 50 %).

Scientific theories that have been shown to be «wrong» in the past were at best only shown to be partially wrong, and more often than not the wrong parts were forced upon scientists by religion and the church.

Scientists don't have all the answers on cosmology and evolution, but they certainly have more accurate information than what is included in the bible.

Believer or not, I would think that you wouldn't want a scientist to start using god in their explanations any more than you would want your mechanic to invoke demon possession for your car problems.

Isn't a bit just as zealous as a creationist that tells you creationism is fact, to force an absolutely unproven theory, with zero physical evidence as scientific fact, rather than a wild theory that many scientist desperately hold onto?

I'm not a scientist or anything and I admit to him knowing tenfold more than I do, yet while I do not follow word - for - word creationalism sounds to me that HE is the one ignoring other facts that some may believe in.

If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it?

However, the major problem with this is, as smart as Richard Dawkins may be, he's not some super social scientist (based on my interactions with scientists, and I am one, we're not the most socially blessed people around), and the reaction to such acts from non-atheists are probably hurting the cause more than anything.

This assertion is not meant to imply that religion is either false or ultimately nothing more than the fabrication of human minds — indeed, Berger argues in other writings that the transcendent seems to break through humanly constructed worlds, as it were, from the outside, However, the social scientist must recognize the degree to which religion, like all symbol systems, involves human activity.

A rocket scientist is NOT more valuable, nor is his time, than a garbage collector.

Indeed it has not been unknown for scientists to resist new theories on grounds which derived from the new form of dogmatism rather than those which belonged to experimental science.

@Observer, that carbon dating method can not tell more than a few thousand years; you've hearing scientists» sci - fi fantasies for all these years.

He would like to trust the scientists to create a brave new world; but though he trusts them more than others, he is not sure they are equal to it.

We must then allow a place in our picture of the universe for categories not reducible to those of science, and must preserve a role among the functions of the mind for other methods than those of the scientist.

You need facts from the bible... try Sodom and Gomorra... These ancient cities have been excavated and scientists have found physical evidence of the cities being burned by fire, not just any fire either, the fire started on the roof tops and burned faster than any fire on earth.»

Scientists can no more prove that there is not a planet inhabited by Sesame Street characters than believers can prove that there is.

You need facts from the bible... try Sodom and Gomorra, kinda the direction our country is headed in... These ancient cities have been excavated and scientists have found physical evidence of the cities being burned by fire, not just any fire either, the fire started on the roof tops and burned faster than any fire on earth.

But someone who sits on a science committee should have a better answer for a magazine interview than «I'm not a scientist, man,».

These scientist, and doctors, can not remake skin, bone, eyes, brains, oval eggs, sperm, none of the sort, so they have no real answer to create a life other than how procreation works, where again what, and how is the very first man, or woman, animal, other creatures, either in the sea, or creeping on this earth was originally created from, as where did they first come from?

I think Carl Jung came up with some good ways of thinking about our cultural images and how they come about — that scientists many hundreds or thousands of years later might have the same sorts of cultural images informing their intuitions, and thus using those images as the basis for a theory of evolution is not so much extraordinary than it is to be expected.

If there was, than real scientists would be refining and honing that method and religionists would not need to manipulate others into belief with promises of salvation, threats of hell, and tsk - tsking of those who don't show respect for the insanity.

While ordinary theologians can not conceive that ontological truth would be accessible in forms other than metaphor, myth and symbol, scientist - theologians tend to be dissatisfied with anything less than relatively straightforward concepts that can claim truth.

Yet another scientist, or person of education, who thinks they know better than the rest of us, and that we have to follow their thinking or be publicly castigated and humiliated for any belief they didn't proclaim as «good.»

From Tocqueville (and Aristotle before him), he learned that the duty of the political scientist was to see «not differently but farther than the partisans.»

Surely you're not so arrogant as to think you understand particle physics and biology better than all the scientists in the world.