Sentences with phrase «whole point of science»

One you can replicate it yourself, you can accept the truth of it, which is the whole point of science.

The whole point of science is to encourage disagreement and keep an open mind.

The whole point of science is that science gets answers that are more truthful than any previous method's answers.

The whole point of science is to ask a question and see where it leads.

Also, the whole point of science is to ask questions and get answers from as many perspectives as possible.»

The whole point of science is to follow the evidence — but we are seeing the same things in today's society that Galileo saw in his day — censorship.

I thought the whole point of science is to learn about the unknown.

Not exact matches

The translator's introduction points out that Fount of Knowledge is one of the most «important single works produced in the Greek patristic period,... offering as it does an extensive and lucid synthesis of the Greek theological science of the whole period.

But the whole point of what makes science work is that it isn't about opinion.

At that point in Science and the Modern World where Whitehead observes: «The relation of part to whole has the special reciprocity associated with the notion of organism, in which the part is for the whole»; he confirms: «but this relation reigns throughout nature and does not start with the special case of the higher organisms» [SMW 149].

Many scientists are certainly skeptical of many of the finer points of evolution, but as a whole, the evolutionary process is accepted as fact amongst any and all biologists that put science ahead of religion.

We say that the whole of science points to God, not because of what we can't explain but because of what we can.

The whole ethos of the science of agriculture points to further movement along this trajectory.

And Barr, in a subsequent letter, affirms: «The whole point of my article was precisely to demonstrate that the narrow concept of randomness that is used throughout all branches of science is compatible with a divine Providence that governs and directs every event in the universe.»

In consequence of this method, and of the reasoning leading to it, practically the whole of Science and the Modern World was written from a point of view that Whitehead abandoned when he discovered, or so Ford alleges, the need for temporal atomicity.

@momoya» the whole punctuated equilibrium is a red herring since it is a part of the evolutionary model and its finer points are debated within the evolutionary science community..

In fact we would say that the whole of science, and the whole scientific order of the universe, points to the Mind of God.

Laughing — yet again you fail, you sit here and you tell me in one breath that i'm wrong in dealing with absolutes, Yet My whole point in the previous post was to point out that I can't blame science for killing Billions of people because they created the bombs and guns to do so... Just like you can't blame Christianity for people using violence against others, it's the people not the ideology that caused the violence, and i believe that... for whatever reason you apparently missed that and tried to make me sound like i honestly blame science for killing billions... so... maybe you need some reading and comprehension classes... i du n no, just would appreciate if you're going to argue with me, that you actually read my responses.

The main shared convictions are: (i) that science should serve the cause of progress and of humanity, in the whole sense of these two terms; (ii) that the human destiny in the universe is the most important quest, and to clarify this point is the ultimate goal not only of religion, but also of science, in their unending search for truth.

With a certain logic flowing from the Dulles - Haught position he applies the supposed methodological reductionism point across the whole range of science, whilst he suggests this applies «most clearly and evidently the world of living substances, living beings».

The whole point of this blog is to give women science based information and debunk fear mongering.

And what more broadly is the role of the blogger within both the science journalism world and the broader scientific world at this point, the whole world of research?

«It brings closure to the whole story,» says Jose Cibelli of Michigan State University in East Lansing, who has derived stem cells from monkey parthenotes (Science, 1 February 2002, p. 819) and who at one point advised Hwang on how to distinguish a parthenote from a clone.

«It's a case of the whole being greater than the sum of its parts,» said Seth Bordenstein, associate professor of biological sciences at Vanderbilt University, who has contributed to the body of scientific knowledge that is pointing to the conclusion that symbiotic microbes play a fundamental role in virtually all aspects of plant and animal biology, including the origin of new species.

All of the science and research points to following a healthy balanced diet that provides an abundance of vitamins and minerals from whole and minimally processed sources to best support the baby's growth and development.

I believe the best science at this point supports a whole food plant based diets with avoidance of GMO foods plus adequate Vitamin B12.

The science at this points to the fact that we reduce our risk of disease and disability the most by eating a whole food plant based diet with adequate Vitamin B12 intake and being fit (e.g. aerobic, strength, flexibility, balance and stability).

That is why Campbell talks about «protein deficiency» in his papers, that is in the context of rats, but as he points out into his book «Whole: rethinking the science of nutrition», rats are not human beings, and rats are not even mices, as there are already great differences of toxicity between rats and mices.

«In a few schools, large proportions of students, or even the whole cohort, were entered for BTEC science, with an associated rise in GCSE - equivalence point scores for the schools,» the report said.

I thought the whole point of a «science debate» was to debate science policy.

I am not going to stand up and support every point made in those references, firstly because I don't, secondly because I am not qualified and finally because the whole point of my initial post was to demonstrate that the side which claims to be on the side of the «science», is demonstrably uncritical of anything which supports their view.

The whole business about linearity / non-linearity, and biological effects below the NOAEL levels, is really fascinating and important for public health science, and the uncertainties re-inforce Paul's point about how careful we should be about the accuracy of the «hard» risk science.

That, actually, is the whole point of reading science papers.

This seems to me to be the practical problem with the whole «get the politics out of the science» starting point.

Your whole litany is irrelevant to the point that at last half of modern science papers and results are almost certainly wrong and that self interest has something to do with it.

The level of science that is being relied upon to decide billions in tax and environmental policies is not «basic», that is afterall the whole point of this argument.

At that point I will, I'm afraid, simply lose interest in the whole business, and leave it to the experts to get on with their stuff, just as I leave most of the rest of science to the appropriate experts.

My questions about a) Christy and Spencer are relevant to the points raised on this thread by Craig Loehle abourt conflicts of interest; b) My points and questions about you failing applying skepticism and scrutiny equally is also relevant to the whole point of your blog and claims about caring about the science and building bridges.

Isn't the whole point to expose and punish the misuse of science by climate scientists and to prevent or make less likely similar things in the future?

But the point of the whole op - ed piece, as well as the Science paper, was that our recent history is, in fact, consistent with our current projections of long - term trends towards stronger hurricanes worldwide.

The whole point of telling policy makers the science is so that they can make better decisions.

At this point, the whole thing would have been salvageable if scientists and the institutions that support science would have spoken up for the integrity of climate science, demanding greater transparency, etc..

On the whole, science is disinclined to play along - which is the point of my book.

All kind of cursory analyses of practices in climate science can be completed with more modest resources, but the real point is determining the accuracy of the whole scientific input, which can be done only by going once more through all relevant pieces of it.

That is the whole point — it only looks like science to the gullible (which includes many scientists from outside the field in question, so it is exactly the same order of ignorance).