Sentences with phrase «what scientific integrity»

She came in originally with substantive matters relating to the actual science involved; and THAT»S what scientific integrity is largely about: dealing honestly with specifics.

Not exact matches

It is a testimony to the scientific integrity of the critical school that by applying its own methods more strictly it was led to discard many of the presuppositions upon which it formerly relied, and to arrive at what I believe to be a juster estimate of the material with which it deals.

Instead, the reader will maintain his integrity if he learns he need not feel guilty if, after questioning the Bible for what it says and implies about the universe, he concludes that our scientific data are more reliable.

In what concrete ways do the scientific societies promote research integrity?

For the ninth time since 2005, the science advocacy group sent out a survey to more than 63,000 federal scientists across 16 agencies to gather information about what's happening inside the federal government in relation to scientific integrity.

But what I did not anticipate were the ways in which ethics and scientific integrity impacted this and all other areas of science.

Environmental lawyer Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., who suggests inoculations are linked to autism, met last week with Trump to discuss a panel to examine what Kennedy called «vaccine safety and scientific integrity.»

What has been noticeably absent so far in the ClimateGate discussion is a public reaffirmation by climate researchers of our basic research values: the rigors of the scientific method (including reproducibility), research integrity and ethics, open minds, and critical thinking.

If Peter Gleick was informally censured by AGU for lack of integrity in behavior not related to scientific research, what of Richard Lindzen and his science communications?

One can bang on indefinitely about the «scientific method» and what it is supposed to achieve, but in the end each scientist practises science with a degree of integrity that is influenced by his / her personality, in turn at least partially determined by upbringing, education, perceived loyalties, etc..

She wrote: «What has been noticeably absent so far in the ClimateGate discussion is a public reaffirmation by climate researchers of our basic research values: the rigors of the scientific method (including reproducibility), research integrity and ethics, open minds, and critical thinking.

Here is what I saw: I saw rightwingers on blogs who expressed zero trust in climate scientists prior to climate gate (over and over, calling AGW a «hoax» perpetrated by Eco-Nazis and corrupt academics selling their scientific integrity) saying that Climategate caused them to lose trust in climate scientists.

Gleick's «integrity» seems to have nothing to do with scientific integrity, but rather loyalty to and consistency with what I have called the UNFCCC / IPCC ideology.

The integrity of scientific research appears to be what it always has been, secondary to the careers of scientists and therefore secondary to political patronage.

The Climate Cuttings 33 post is, IMHO, responsive to the inquiry's Question 1, «What are the implications of the disclosures for the integrity of scientific research?»

-- What are the implications of the disclosures for the integrity of scientific research?

Why would you not add to the cost of what filing cabinets of global warming alarmism pseudo-science, all of the dollars that are funneled to the Mideast and folks like Hugo and all of the foregone oppoutunities here at home, not to mention the damage to the culture and the toll it has taken on scientific integrity?

``... even if what Peter Gleick did was wrong — and it was — that shouldn't be taken to mean that his scientific integrity was lacking.»

I also think that most of the established science is what Feynman called Cargo Cult Science, which refers to practices that have the semblance of being scientific, but are missing «a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty».

Did you notice what was happening and did you stop to consider what the effect on scientific integrity was likely to be?

By what standards do we evaluate scientific integrity?

However, my main point is that even if what Peter Gleick did was wrong — and it was — that shouldn't be taken to mean that his scientific integrity was lacking.

Merely questioning your scientific integrity would not constitute an ad hominem argument — perhaps you should learn what that term means before employing it.

I think that the third is what we need to prioritize; for surely the next challenges to scientific integrity are on our doorstep already.

Well, I don't suppose anyone reads this far down the comments anyway — I usually don't — , so here goes: As much as I admire S. McIntyre and value his contribution in creating and maintaining this blog — and, for what it's worth, I see him as a veritable reincarnation of Richard Feynman in terms of scientific rigor and integrity and brilliance — , for me this post and some others similar to it are «Climate Audit Lite», which are ultimately not especially satisfying.

What are the implications of the disclosures for the integrity of scientific research?

What these people are doing is selling their scientific integrity for money and power.

But even if one believes such actions are justified in principle I don't think it is appropriate for someone in Gleick's position to do what he did because if scientists are seen to do anything which undermines their personal integrity then it can cast doubt in the public's eye about their scientific work and that of their colleagues and makes it harder for them to counter the anti-scientific antics of the fake skeptics, although I would hope that the stinking hypocrisy of the latter would also be apparent to the public.

When advocates for AGW start following Feynman's prescription for scientific integrity, for example, then we'll see what the totality of the data and arguments add up to.

That speaks to me of scientific integrity, and it is refreshing to encounter it in the climate debate which is often dominated by what might be, at best, called «courtroom integrity» in which antagonists vie with each other to present watertight cases immune to argument and contradiction.

And that, my dear Mr, Appell, is what is really being concealed... the lack of scientific integrity of Mann's Men.

What do Russell Seitz and the FBI authors of the white paper have to say about the «hoax» of nuclear winter and the «notorious lack of scientific integrity» of our climate scientists now?

In other words, they sacrificed what little integrity they may have had in favour of making a big scientific «splash».