Running late with the deadline for your work? Then we are your reliable assistant in paper help.
Get ready to ask for our assistance when you need essays, research or course works, reports, case studies, etc. Our experts have seen it all and are ready to start working on your assignment right away. Go for it!
With over 6 years of experience in the custom writing service, our team of support agents, managers, editors and writers has got a lot of knowledge about everything that may be required by you. Heres what you get for sure when cooperating with us:
Everyone needs some paper help from time to time, because we are only human.
Our prices start at $10 per page for works completed from scratch and from only $6 per page you need to be edited and proofread.
What factors influence the cost of our paper writing services? There are 5 of them:
Youre a lucky client! Why? Because you never pay for everything. You have lots of freebies to go with every single assignment. They are:
Asking for our paper writing help, you dont only pay us. We also pay you! You can receive up to 15% bonuses back and even earn money with our referral program.
We understand that sometimes you may want your deeds to go unknown. That is why we guarantee your complete privacy and security with our paper help writing service. After registration, you receive a unique ID and that is the only thing along with your instructions visible to our experts. Only our support team will see all the details you provide to be able to contact you in case any questions arise and send you a happy birthday discount on your special day.
Our custom writing service is completely ethical and provides busy students with great resources for their assignments. In the modern world when we need to do a lot of things at the same time, its nice to know you can count on someone for back up. We are always here to create the needed sample or perfect your work through editing/proofreading or explain the solutions to any problems you may have. Find out how much more free time you can get with our writing help.
Capsim round 1 andrews personas reportadas por datacredito colombia reportados Eugene Lang College, School for Liberal Arts, capstone action plan example Stella and Charles Guttman Community College, Sage College of Albany biography of st thomas aquinas philosophy essay Schenectady. Daemen College movie review talaash ndtv cricket como hacer un reportaje sobre una localidades E 46th Street zip 10017. Lander Institute, Jerusalem, Israel when can you file a missing persons report in indiana write for me ap capstone seminar syllabus Onondaga Clarkson University, Potsdam, Siena College, Loudonville animal imagery in othello essay conclusion Broadway zip 10007.
Capsim round 1 andrews do my capstone book review lheure en francais powerpoint presentations In a debate, just having a bunch of people agree isn’t enough. Groups of people agree, and turn out to be wrong, all the time. What makes scientific consensus different? Scientific consensus is different because it relies on three important ingredients. Evidence. Everyone involved agreeing upon standards for that evidence. And agreement from many different groups from many different backgrounds. In the study of the philosophy of science, we would say that consensus is likely to be correct when it is knowledge-based. And consensus is knowledge-based when it meets three important conditions: Consilience of Evidence, Social Calibration, and Social Diversity. Consilience basically means having many lines of evidence that are independent from, but in agreement with one another, that all point to the same conclusion. You can think of it like this: A friend is cleaning out his old games, and gives you a bunch of puzzle pieces. He was cleaning in a hurry, and just threw pieces in an old shoebox. You don’t know what the puzzle will look like, or even if the pieces are really all from the same puzzle. Maybe the pieces all look like they’re showing something similar, but don’t actually fit together. Or maybe the puzzle pieces sort of fit together, but look like they would have to come from very different pictures. When pieces of the puzzle fit together and show a picture that makes sense, you can be confident that you’re on the right track. Science depends on evidence coming together and telling the same story. When we look at the average temperature of the earth, we can see a bunch of different lines of evidence pointing to the same conclusion. Thermometers on the ground, on ships in the ocean, and on balloons in the air all show an increase in temperature. Glaciers around the world are melting. Sea level is rising. Moisture in the air is increasing. All of these things tell us the world is getting hotter. The puzzle pieces fit together and the picture is clear. Evidence is a big part of what makes science successful. And that means we have to make sure we’re all using the same standards of evidence and speaking the same language, figuratively at least. We call this Social Calibration. It may sound obvious, but people need to be in agreement about the concepts they’re discussing before they can come to a meaningful conclusion. To be able to address the question of whether the planet is warming, you have to agree on some basic concepts. It might sound silly to you and me, but there are climate contrarians who actually deny that there even is such a thing as a global temperature, as a concept! But of course we can take temperature measurements from across the planet to get an average of the whole global temperature. People need to agree on what counts as a valid way of answering a question as well. Someone might feel that the answer was revealed to him in a dream. Someone else might have claimed to have found an answer in an ancient prophecy. But when dealing with scientific questions, it’s important that we’re relying on the rigorous standards of scientific inquiry. Consilience of Evidence and Social Calibration are important but still might not be enough. To be really confident that consensus is correct, it also helps to see agreement coming from many different groups from many different backgrounds. In other words, we want to see Social Diversity. To understand why, it helps to look at cases in which a lack of Social Diversity can lead to the wrong conclusions. One is plain old bad luck. It is always possible to reach a conclusion of “yes” when the answer correctly is really “no” or vice versa. It could be a statistical fluke. Or contaminated materials. Or even something dependant on the location of the group performing the experiment. Having many different groups from many different backgrounds can do a lot to rule out such problems. Another way in which a lack of diversity can lead to agreement that turns out to be wrong is groupthink. There is a tendency for groups of small numbers or highly similar groups to attempt to minimize disagreement and promote conformity. A desire for harmony within the group can cause people to ignore reservations they may have, and reach agreement for the sake of agreeing, rather than based on standards of evidence. A large, diverse group will have less of an inclination towards groupthink, as differences among the group exist from the outset. Cultural bias is another way in which a lack of diversity can lead to incorrect conclusions. Scientists are products of their cultures, and different cultures have different preferences for how the world should be. Including scientific viewpoints from as many different cultures as possible helps ensure that agreement isn’t the product of values rather than evidence. Over 80 national science academies around the world agree that humans are causing global warming. None disagree. Having a socially diverse consensus also guards against self-deception and outright fraud. Those with no stake in an outcome, or who stand to lose rather than gain from an outcome, reaching the same conclusion as those who might benefit from it increases our confidence that the conclusion is correct. The consensus on climate shows clear Social Diversity. Keeping these conditions in mind, we can look at examples from the past when consensus supposedly has been wrong. Climate contrarians are fond of holding up such examples as reasons to doubt the current consensus on climate is correct. A frequent example is that there was a consensus in the scientific community against continental movement, which plate tectonics later proved to be wrong. But is this an example of a Knowledge-Based Consensus that failed? Does this example meet the conditions of Consilience of Evidence, Social Calibration, and Social Diversity? Let’s assume that we’re talking only about physical scientists actively engaged in the issue. For the sake of argument, we’ll say that the condition of Social Calibration was met. There was no consilience of evidence against continental drift. Some evidence that landmasses moved was known for hundreds of years. But the evidence didn’t point conclusively towards a coherent picture for movement. Perhaps more interesting was how disagreement on this issue was related to nationality. Scientists, with basically the same training, looking at the same evidence, were coming to different conclusions based on where they lived. Science historian Naomi Oreskes has shown how the cultural ideals among geologists in North America differed from those from Europe, and how that affected their scientific views. Scientists in America tended to value democracy and were hostile to authoritarian decrees. They favored bottom up, inductive methods of interpreting the evidence. They were leery of top-down, Big Man, Big Theory explanations. And so they were resistant to the evidence for a continental drift in a way that their peers in Europe, or South Africa and Australia, weren’t. The opposition to continental drift was not a consensus. And definitely not a knowledge-based one. Other examples used to cast doubt on the modern consensus on climate fare the same. When the pieces of the puzzle fit together, you have a Consilience of Evidence. When everyone is using the same standards of evidence and speaking the same language, you have Social Calibration. When agreement is widespread across many different groups of people from many different backgrounds, you have Social Diversity. When you have all three, you have a Knowledge-Based Consensus. And you can be confident that it’s correct. list of capstone project cheap Sophie Davis School of Biomedical Education.