Sentences with phrase «using false science»

So sad when believers try to justify belief by using false science.

Not exact matches

It IS funny, because many people who claim that they are «scientific» just blindly accept «Corporate Science» aimed at keeping them logically ignorant, meaning, they can use logic and reason (and even rhetoric if you know your Trivium) to argue well for false ideas.

Like their (false) Prophet, who was a lousy criminal (this can be proved by historical science), they use the gun or the sword to spread their «faith».

It is such false philosophies of science that have been behind the Marxist, and the secularist, use of evolution.

Science teachers take note: The site includes a feature called SciCheck, which focuses on false and misleading scientific claims used for political influence.

To give you a taste of what is coming in Part 2, the arguments can be summarized as: 1) Education does not lend itself to a single «best» approach, so the Gates effort to use science to discover best practices is unable to yield much productive fruit; 2) As a result, the Gates folks have mostly been falsely invoking science to advance practices and policies they prefer for which they have no scientific support; 3) Attempting to impose particular practices on the nation's education system is generating more political resistance than even the Gates Foundation can overcome, despite their focus on political influence and their devotion of significant resources to that effort; 4) The scale of the political effort required by the Gates strategy of imposing «best» practices is forcing Gates to expand its staffing to levels where it is being paralyzed by its own administrative bloat; and 5) The false invocation of science as a political tool to advance policies and practices not actually supported by scientific evidence is producing intellectual corruption among the staff and researchers associated with Gates, which will undermine their long - term credibility and influence.

When Aussies are really serious they do things like overturn decades of accepted medical consensus aka «false beliefs» by using Science to take our collective knowledge another step further.

It's a false claim, like most assumptions made when environment and science are used for a political agenda.

You are just another militant group who is using junk science to promote a false premisse.

I think that looking at the science and its credibility is important and that the use of «consensus» is being corrupted to give a false impression of certainty

«Climate Science Denial Group GWPF Admits It Used False Temperature Graph,» DeSmog UK, August 14, 2017.

You've come to the point where you're willing to ignore false statements about methods used — that would undermine science as a field.

I can't imagine using science to assert false and damaging associations about a political camp I disagreed with.

Create a false problem with false science and use bureaucrats to bypass politicians to close industry down and make developed countries pay.

In February, climate analyst and MacArthur «genius» grant recipient Peter Gleick admitted using a false identity to obtain and distribute files that provided a detailed picture of the finances and plans of the Heartland Institute, an anti-regulatory think tank that calls climate research «junk science.»

e.g., True / False: «If, through misunderstanding of the underlying science and through misguided public fear and hysteria, mankind significantly rations and restricts the use of hydrocarbons, the worldwide increase in prosperity will stop.

however, in climate science this problem is ignored, allowing false positives to routinely be used as evidence of true positives.

Theo Goodwin says: June 16, 2011 at 2:49 pm «The moral wrongness is in his willingness to beat the drum for ideas that are designed to deceive an uninformed public and to promote a political agenda using false claims under the good name of science.

The moral wrongness is in his willingness to beat the drum for ideas that are designed to deceive an uninformed public and to promote a political agenda using false claims under the good name of science.

They both developed from false assumptions, used manipulated data and science, which they combined into computer models whose projections were, not surprisingly, wrong.

The real question here, especially after the scandals of the tweaked data, the lockout of contrary input, the use of glacial statistics that were entirely false, the unforgivable falsification of the «hockey stick»... the real question is: Can we call AGW good, established science?