Sentences with phrase «valid scientific evidence of»

warrenlb, that site contains no valid scientific evidence of human causality in any of the climate warming since 1900 (or before, for that matter).

Some states require abortion providers to provide women with written or verbal information suggesting that abortion increases a woman's risk of breast cancer or mental illness, despite the lack of valid scientific evidence of increased risk.

Not exact matches

And your level of scientific education that allows you to reject valid scientific evidence would be...?

If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step — known as a theory — in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon.»

Such evidence is admissible only under the presupposition that the principle of scientific method, namely that every effect which occurs can be explained in terms of purely immanent relationships within the operation itself, is not only valid methodologically but is true in and of itself.

Regardless of the type of legal proceeding or which side uses scientific evidence, the forensic scientist must be able to write a report and testify under oath about: what facts or items of evidence were analyzed or tested; what tests or analyses were used; how valid or reliable those tests or analyses have been found to be by other courts; why and how the forensic scientist was qualified to conduct those tests or analyses; and, what the results of the tests or analyses were and how those results are relevant to the issues in dispute.

Since I was told about my recurrence I started searching for any valid scientific evidence that I could find that might improve the outcome of my situation and came up with the ketogenic diet (dairy free) life style.

There is no scientific or research - based evidence that such a link is valid, reliable, or fair for the purpose of teacher evaluation.

This linkage was done without any scientific or research - based evidence that such a link was valid, reliable, or fair for the purpose of teacher evaluation.

There is no valid scientific evidence that megadoses of Vitamin C, or any other supplement, can reduce the effects of or prevent CHD.

How about: A layman can form a valid opinion on a technical climate matter, if they can support it with sound logic and evidence, irrespective of the scientific consensus.

I realize it's kind of late for making suggestions, but here goes anyway: Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner claim to have falsified the existence of an atmospheric greenhouse effect.It looks like you have addressed T&G's main arguments (eg, about the 2nd law), but I wonder if it might be appropriate to put in a brief description of what it means to «falsify» something in the scientific sense — ie, essentially what T&G must show (and failed to show) to make their case that there is no greenhouse effect: namely, 1) experimental evidence that shows the opposite of what an atmospheric greenhouse effect would necessarily produce and / or 2) evidence that the greenhouse effect would actually violate some physical law (eg, 2nd law of thermo) The pot on the stove example is obviously an attempt to show that you get a colder temp with the water than without, but I think it's worthwhile explicitly stating that «because T&G failed to demonstrate that the pot on the stove example is a valid analogy for the earth, they failed to falsify the atmospheric greenhouse effect» And you could also add a sentence stating that «because T&G failed to show that the greenhouse effect would require a violation of the 2nd law [because their arguments were incorrect], they also failed to falsify»

It leads to an incomplete view of scientific inquiry and results and presents an obstacle for evidence - based decision - making and public acceptance of valid, scientific discoveries and theories.

Once again, you assume an effect for CO2 when there is little if any fundamental scientific evidence of its effects, because there remains no valid described way to attribute natural variation versus man made change.

But regardless of how scientists act, they should all advance their arguments through evidence and valid scientific interpretations.

Ron, I am not surprised that that is the way you want to describe it, but I would describe your choice as purposeful selectivity between equally valid and equally scientific arguments denying part of them to reduce their power as evidence.

You write: «Ron, I am not surprised that that is the way you want to describe it, but I would describe your choice as purposeful selectivity between equally valid and equally scientific arguments denying part of them to reduce their power as evidence.»

One such case is Don Easterbrook, whose testimony in front of a Washington State Committee in March 2013 so distorted the scientific facts that most of the members of his department (WWU geology) wrote a public letter, saying» [his views] are neither scientifically valid nor supported by the overwhelming preponderance of evidence on the topic».