Thomas M. Lessl, a scholar at the University of Georgia who has long studied the rhetoric and societal relationships of both science and religion, is well positioned to add to the recent discussion here over
whether confidence in science as a source of progress is based on faith or fact.
There's been a range of interesting reactions to my piece on Pete Seeger's question about
whether confidence in science as a source of human progress is underpinned by fact or faith.
Not exact matches
Can someone with the article and some competence
in reading it comment
whether the new
Science article is an improved statistical analysis on the same dataset, or has other data or basis for what sounds like greater
confidence in saying this is an apparent trend?
Can someone with the article and some competence
in reading it comment
whether the new
Science article is an improved statistical analysis on the same dataset, or has other data or basis for what sounds like greater
confidence in saying this is an apparent trend?
This makes it all the tougher to evaluate the language of «high
confidence» etc., which,
in the end, papers over
whether the material is truly based on
science or not.