Sentences with phrase «science works so»

Science works so well in large part because it corrects errors, makes improvements, updates itself, and moves forward — and does it very quickly on a historical scale.

Why is science working so hard to try extend mans life to 150 and beyond?

and «In science, students explore how both the natural physical world and science itself work so that they can participate as critical, informed, and responsible citizens in a society in which science plays a significant role.»

Not exact matches

Rather than assuming that keeping a resolution has to be hard work, science shows that the people who actually meet their goals do so by making things as easy for themselves as possible.

«Juno and her cloud - penetrating science instruments will dive in to see how deep the roots of this storm go and help us understand how this giant storm works and what makes it so special,» Bolton said in a NASA statement.

So science budgets are cut and skeptical politicians grill researchers about the value of their work.

So he helped Mr. Négri apply for a three - year work visa for foreign professionals with college degrees and specialized skills, mainly in technology and science.

It's very rare to have one vendor working across so many different campaign functions — we're proud that we integrated polling, data science and marketing into a single operation.

GFI's science and technology department is involved in the development and promotion of the science of plant - based cultured meat, dairy, and egg technologies.33 They are currently focused on core foundational work — making connections with organizations and writing white papers and «mind maps» — and as such they do not yet have a significant track record.34 They have produced Technological Readiness Assessments — documents detailing the current state of technology, and evaluating where more research is needed.35 All the research GFI does is published, so that the industry as a whole can benefit.36 One of their biggest successes over the last year are the presentations that Senior Scientist Liz Specht gave to various venture capitalist firms.

1) It's worked in every other field we've applied to so far in science so why not in these cases as well?

'» Asked to paint a picture of the company in 20 years, the executives mentioned such things as «on the cover of Business Week as a model success story... the Fortune most admired top - ten list... the best science and business graduates want to work here... people on airplanes rave about one of our products to seatmates... 20 consecutive years of profitable growth... an entrepreneurial culture that has spawned half a dozen new divisions from within... management gurus use us as an example of excellent management and progressive thinking,» and so on.

@sciper: ok so you're saying that faith, which requires no proof works well with science that requires not only proof, but is only accepted if challenged by peers and tested over and over again... sure they get along great.

We do have to work and do in our society to make it better... why do I feel so good when I do social things in the community if everything only boils down to science?

So I feel instinctively that there is something else at work where science fails.

For the past two decades or so, the majority of those working in the humanities and the interpretive social sciences have witnessed the value of focused and sustained learning and the integrity of fields be progressively diluted and frittered away by an increasingly separate class of professional administrators.

Science says «I don't know how things work, so let's find out».

Listen: there may or may not be some force that created the universe... we haven't figured that out yet... but it is not this god of bronze age foolishness that is so concerned with what people do while na.ked and so concerned that we praise him all day long and tell him how wonderful he is and so concerned with suppressing science and so concerned with meting out punishment and so concerned inanities like what you can eat and what days you can work on and what cloth you wear and who you can marry.

Only a complete revision of how we approach educating both children and, yes, even adults in the way the world works, according to science and NOT supersti - tion, is going to give us the hope we so desperately seek in ensuring that the U.S. survives and thrives far into this millennium.

First in the United States, then in France, Italy, Spain, and Latin America, more recently in Holland, Belgium, and Germany, and now at last in Great Britain, serious attention is being paid to its work, not least among Roman Catholics who are impatient with the older Thomism, which for so long has been quasi-official in that communion, and who are looking for a conceptuality which will be comprehensive in its sweep, open to newer knowledge and science, and available for Christian use.

We can limit our questions to those which fall fully within the scope of the particular sciences each of which so circumscribes its work that questions of such ultimacy can not arise.

It is to be hoped that as the centre develops in its work, so it will broaden its outlook so that the natural sciences, the single most influential strand of philosophical thought in modern times, is not left out of the conversation.

So much for God and science working together.

One of the reasons science has worked so well when other systems have failed is that it doesn't rely on intuition / common sense, because they are so often wrong when dealing with the realities of the universe.

Not sure I'd like to single out one person as the «father» of the theory, but whoever it may be (I'd say Lemaitre, if I had to choose), science doesn't work on the basis of leaders and followers, so your question makes no sense.

Face it, you have no idea if there are any gods, or if satan inspired your book (a god would not have gotten so much wrong) You act just like those ridiculous crewationist sites caliming science but clearly do not understand how science works... you do not know how logic works.

She claims to be a scientist but works for an organization that ignores any science that doesn't agree with the Bible, when she should be followinf the evidence where ever it leads and if it shows the Bible to be wrong then so be it.

Bill Nye never became irrelevant and has been working to increase kid's knowledge of science for decades unlike organized religion which is attempting to dumb down our children so they can be fooled into repeating the same mistakes as their parents, those of prejudice, exclusivity, hate, greed and ignorance.

... yeah suzy and others... I just happen to realize that when monkey devolving didn't quite work out on paper it all changed to single cells and from the slime off of the worlds garbage can and so on... I just happen to know more than you think... In another ten or twenty years the science books will all have a new teaching... the Bible has been around and hasn't changed one word in over two thousnad years..

Doesn't use evolution in his work, but all science is impacted by having an educated populace, so I'm glad someone is sayign * something.

Being a YEC is not an automatic disqualification for doing scientific work because science is driven by an objective methodology, so as long as that methodology is not compromised then one is free to think whatever they please.

The importance of the medieval thinkers Buridan and Oresme for science had been rediscovered by the great twentieth - century French physicist Pierre Duhem, whose own work Jaki has done so much to restore to the prominence it deserves.

So I'm working with Marc Guerra on Descartes, Locke, and Darwin and the modern science of virtue, and the result will be many annoying thought experiments such as this one....

Imagine: How Creativity Works by Jonah Lehrer — I expected this book about the science behind creativity to be informative, but I never expected it to be so practical.

This is striking because he calls what he is doing in that work «science» (episteme) and, according to his own Posterior analytics, a science ought to be so arranged.

as for you being generally educated in the sciences... so was sir isaac newton - and he worked overtime at alchemy — and also — like yourself — held the delusional belief in an imaginary man in the sky.

So, for someone who isn't familiar with those disciplines, I would suggest the person ask himself or herself, «who is most likely more knowledgeable in these areas and who can most credibly assess the evidence in these sciences, kermit4jc and other creationists like him or the world's scientists working in those fields.»

The theological work which will be most useful in the years ahead will be that which works out its motifs in correlation with the whole range of the biological, behavioral, and social sciences, and does so in language which has the widest possible touch with ordinary modes of speech common to all educated persons.

For Man, by the act of «noospherically» concentrating himself upon himself, not only becomes reflectively aware of the ontological current on which he is borne, but also gains control of certain of the springs of energy which dictate this advance: above all, collective springs, in so far as he consciously realizes the value, biological efficiency and creative nature of social organization; but also individual springs m as much as, through the collective work of science, he feels himself to be on the verge of acquiring the power of physicochemical control of the operations of heredity and morphogenesis in the depths of his own being.

Try thanking mommy and daddy for working so hard, try thanking science and technology and secularism you religious cult slime.

Regarding some «basics», if education (and science / s), and also entertainment (/ arts)(that is especially provisions thereof) are not considered work whatsoever, and if so - called» (social) darwinism» is considered as what determines judgement / s and agreement / s, perhaps it should be clear which group / s think / s so?

Regarding «basics», if education (and science / s), and also entertainment (/ arts)(that is especially provisions thereof) are not considered work whatsoever, and if so - called» (social) darwinism» is considered as what determines judgement / s and agreement / s, perhaps it should be clear which group / s think / s so?

The science of genetics which is beginning to dominate the study of living forms depends upon very exact laws capable ofmathematical expression, and usually so expressed in advanced technical works.

if prayer worked, we'd run our cars off it but it doesn't so we use what works... SCIENCE!!!!!!

The Decision was not made by any scientific study it was a personal decision that took H0m0s off the DSM and in turn since you cant seem to follow this the DSM is what most physcs use so in turn they like you parrot a view point so they also chime in that is how science works.

Satan attacks me in my thoughts day and night and he makesit so i can barely eat i pray to the lord and he consoles me god is REAL i used to e a drug dealer the most violent and disruptive of men and one night i came under attack from satan and felt like satan was makeing me into someone im not putting thoughts in my head of death suicide and sexual immorality then i read the wqordof god and everything felt better when i read the Book «The Advocate» spiritual warfare is real and god can save you from satans tourment do nt let Satan claim the rights to your soul i had trouble believing in god for years my mind worked in science and fact but the fact is that God is real and living and when you leave this earth you Will face Judgement

Science only works so well because it continually attempts to destroy its own ideas with competing evidence or ideas that take into account all the evidence in hand.

So many believers are dismissive of science despite the fact the computer they are using is totally based on science and our theories of electrodynamics and material sciences (ALL THEORIES yet your computer still works).

there may or may not be some force that created the universe... we haven't figured that out yet... but it is not this god of bronze age foolishness that is so concerned with what people do while na.ked and so concerned that we praise him all day long and tell him how wonderful he is and so concerned with suppressing science and so concerned with meting out punishment and so concerned with inanities like what you can eat and what days you can work on and what cloth you wear and who you can marry.

However, the urgent necessity of today is that the sort of principles science has worked with so successfully in relating established order to changed knowledge may be applied in these other areas.

These men had been convinced that belief in the field of religion must be formed by the same methods of inquiry that worked so well in the natural and social sciences.