The pursuit of knowledge about the universe is definitionally integral to science (you can look it up!), and you are simply not a scientist if you don't embrace the assumption that the universe is intelligible to reasoned, evidence-based investigation.
We need a project based on reason, evidence and testable designs, that cuts with the grain of history and is sustainable by the planet.
It is right that we can't give epistemic reasons — evidence — for those fundamental principles that tell us what evidence to trust.
He does not say so, but I assume that the Liberal Democrats stood for "reason, evidence and compromise" in his world view; but who are the forces of "grievance and unreasoned populism" now running rampant, I wonder?
For these reasons, evidence from practice-based studies should not be overlooked.
Non-rational transcendent emotions are harmonious with reason, evidence, and naturalism.
For this reason, evidence from studies such as this is essential for institutions developing screening policies.
For this reason, evidence for the advantageousness of conducting a targeted screening for all high-risk patients is provided by cost-analyses.
1. Relevance condition: The rationales for priority setting decisions must rest on reasons (evidence and principles) that 'fair-minded' people can agree are relevant in the context.
According to 'accountability for reasonableness', priority setting is fair to the degree it meets four conditions: Rationales for priority setting decisions must rest on reasons (evidence and principles) that stakeholders can agree are relevant in the context.
A common characteristic of both theism and religion is their reliance on faith: belief in the existence of god and in the truth of religious doctrines is neither founded upon nor defended by logic, reason, evidence, or science.
