Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigExact(1)
But he adds, "It would be wrong for scientists to dismiss these outright".
Similar(59)
To traditional Christians who consider an embryo to be a human being with a soul, it is wrong for scientists to use cloning to create human embryos or to destroy embryos in the course of research.
It is one thing for a social scientist to be wrong, for other studies will most likely discover what is right eventually.
It is not "merely" atmospheric scientists that would have to be wrong for Plimer to be right.
"It would be wrong for her to say that we didn't find an effect," said Dr. Bill McDonnell, a former EPA scientist whose work was cited by Goodman.
Everything was wrong for us.
This is wrong for two reasons.
"When there is a really new idea in science, most of the time it's wrong, so for scientists to be sceptical is perfectly reasonable...[But] it didn't make it any easier".
Faced with a choice between saying that Fresnel's theory is correct and saying that it is wrong, contemporary scientists would opt for the negative verdict.
And they would not have been far wrong - for scientists now believe global warming is melting the Alps, threatening widespread devastation over the next two decades.
Scientists can be wrong, but they do not stay wrong.
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com