Example collocations logo

Scientific in sentence

2039 examples of Scientific in a sentence

Instead of taking scientific evidence as dogma, we should consider it as tentative information that should be ascribed a level of credibility.
There is nothing wrong with disseminating scientific information that has a credibility of 10%, or even 1%.
Science is a noble pursuit, but genuine progress in scientific research is not easy to achieve.
Proposed scientific advances require careful validation and replication by independent scientists.
While these principles are probably well known to serious scientists, they are often forgotten when scientific information is disseminated.
Exaggeration contradicts the key hallmarks of scientific reasoning: critical thinking and careful appraisal of the evidence.
According to a recent study by Bruegel, China already spends more on research and development, as a percentage of GDP, than the European Union; and it now produces as many scientific publications as the US and more PhDs in natural sciences and engineering.
Natural selection has provided scientific explanations of traits as diverse as the mammalian eye, the bird’s wing, and the ability of plants to transform light into sugars.
Gal Raz and one of us (EJ) recently went through the scientific literature and found 101 cases of epigenetic inheritance between generations of bacteria, fungi, protozoa, plants, and animals, and we are sure that this is just the tip of a very large iceberg.
Carson drew on scientific findings, but also voiced fundamental misgivings about consumer capitalism and a “postmaterialistic” belief in the primacy of the quality of life over economic growth.
He approved oil exploration in closed nature reserves, and also systematically fought to suppress scientific evidence on climate change.
As a chorus of researchers has pointed out, the provisions, pushed by the pharmaceutical companies, were so unbalanced that they were bad for scientific progress.
The bottom line is this: within the scientific community, there is a general consensus that most people who use cannabis will not develop significant mental-health problems.
Are the international scientific community and the IAEA really incapable of providing indicators and criteria that would allow the international community to differentiate between two types of industrial operations?
That is appropriate, for it is of the utmost importance that the leader of the world’s 1.2 billion Roman Catholics has unequivocally stated that scientific studies attribute “most global warming” in recent decades to greenhouse gases, “released mainly as a result of human activity.”
Bernal's main scientific interest was initially the atomic structure of crystals, metals, and minerals, then of hormones and sterols--and of some amino acids, the building blocks of proteins.
But, to protect its own interests, Big Tobacco deliberately misled the public, doing everything possible to cast doubt on scientific findings that it knew to be accurate.
Making predictions about scientific breakthroughs is notoriously difficult.
And, in truth, the public is right: while there is a somewhat scientific basis for these models, they can go spectacularly wrong.
For example, after 1960, when the University of Chicago started creating a Univac computer tape that contained systematic information about millions of stock prices, a great deal of scientific research on the properties of stock prices was taken as confirming the “efficient markets hypothesis.”
The financial crisis delivered a fatal blow to that overconfidence in scientific economics.
There is no established scientific procedure that could prove their validity.
Indeed, far too many of the policies being recommended for primary schools have no scientific basis.
A crucial next step is to bring together scientific, political, and business leaders from societies that share the problems of water scarcity – for example, Sudan, Pakistan, the US, Australia, Spain, and Mexico – to brainstorm about creative approaches to overcoming them.
Even for a military man like me, the latest scientific evidence on global warming makes for a chilling read.
Anyone familiar with the scientific process is aware that researchers are trained to disagree, to contest one another’s hypotheses and conclusions.
A consensus of such magnitude is as close as we ever get to a recognized scientific fact.
Of the party’s dozen presidential candidates, only two (Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman) declined to reject scientific evidence concerning global warming and its human causes.
The science is real, even if Trump is happy to show off his scientific ignorance.
No matter how many schoolchildren are gunned down or what the scientific evidence may be for the effects of carbon dioxide emissions, people will not change beliefs that define their identity.
BackNext