Sentences with phrase «basic nature of science»

Not exact matches

This was not to be one further elucidation of Whitehead's «philosophy of organism,» but Leclerc's own detailed recounting of how we must recover a few basic presuppositions if we are ever to elucidate a philosophy of nature worthy of our post-Whiteheadian era — an era unhappily determined to grapple with the complexities of contemporary science by leaving Whitehead aside.

Any specification of the responsibilities that accompany our basic rights, any articulation of the content of the «laws of nature,» any acknowledgement that the Church might be necessary for the state to judge and fulfill its obligations to the «power in heaven,» or any specification of the meaning of «nature and nature's God» — though article 1, sec. 8 of the Constitution may provide a clue when it empowers Congress «to promote the Progress of Science and the useful Arts.»

The only relevant question for the theologian is the basic assumption on which the adoption of a biological as of every other Weltanschauung rests, and that assumption is the view of the world which has been molded by modern science and the modern conception of human nature as a self - subsistent unity immune from the interference of supernatural powers.

However, he adds, «The nature of basic science is changing, and this is influencing the kind of people we are looking to recruit.»

Having long relied on materials found in nature, or modifications of those materials, materials science is working toward the goal of designing new materials from basic principles to fulfill particular needs.

Recently, in an article published in the journal Nature Energy, lead author Yong Yan, an assistant professor in the Department of Chemistry and Environmental Science, reported a key breakthrough in the basic science essential for progress toward thiScience, reported a key breakthrough in the basic science essential for progress toward thiscience essential for progress toward this goal.

Verifying the existence of the Higgs confirmed science's favored explanation for why nature's basic particles have mass.

While there was a lot of interesting science in this paper (the new methodology, the range of results etc.) which fully justified its appearance in Nature, we were quite critical of their basic conclusion — that climate sensitivities significantly higher than the standard range (1.5 — 4.5 ºC) were plausible — because there is significant other data, predominantly from paleo - climate, that pretty much rule those high numbers out (as we discussed again recently).

Famed astrophysicist Stephen Hawking has shaken up the popular science world with his newest study about the basic nature of black holes, but is his idea revolutionary?

His two recent books are Learning from the Octopus: How Secrets from Nature Can Help Us Fight Terrorism, Natural Disasters, and Disease (Basic Books) and Observation and Ecology: Broadening the Scope of Science to Understand a Complex World (Island Press).

They reviewed every issue of six top - tier international journals (JAMA, Lancet, the New England Journal of Medicine, Cell, Nature and Science), and four mid-ranking journals (British Medical Journal, JAMA Internal Medicine, Journal of Cell Science, FASEB Journal), chosen to represent the clinical and basic science aspects of reScience), and four mid-ranking journals (British Medical Journal, JAMA Internal Medicine, Journal of Cell Science, FASEB Journal), chosen to represent the clinical and basic science aspects of reScience, FASEB Journal), chosen to represent the clinical and basic science aspects of rescience aspects of research.

She was also trained clinically whereas I have a basic science background, so she handles queries of a more clinical nature.

While there was a lot of interesting science in this paper (the new methodology, the range of results etc.) which fully justified its appearance in Nature, we were quite critical of their basic conclusion — that climate sensitivities significantly higher than the standard range (1.5 — 4.5 ºC) were plausible — because there is significant other data, predominantly from paleo - climate, that pretty much rule those high numbers out (as we discussed again recently).

«With global temperatures hitting a new record high and repeated episodes of severe weather, including flooding in this country, helping people to understand the basic science behind climate change as well as the consequences for our nature, our businesses and food supply feels like an important thing to do.»

Roy W. Spencer is a well known AGW «Denier» a PHD, U.S., Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR - E) on NASA's Aqua satellite, holder of the NASA Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal, published in Nature (one of the most prestigious science journals in the world), yet some of his most basic scientific ideas are clearly ridiScience Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR - E) on NASA's Aqua satellite, holder of the NASA Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal, published in Nature (one of the most prestigious science journals in the world), yet some of his most basic scientific ideas are clearly ridiscience journals in the world), yet some of his most basic scientific ideas are clearly ridiculous.

But by bringing in real experts who actually study this, and not a hodge podge of those who ran to it from other disciples (or outside science) because of ideological drive and who fundamentally don't know the issue and, in further flourishes of rhetoric, represent them to the world as «large lists,» and denounce the basic consensus - as Curry has erroneously bought into — implicitly or directly calling the National Academy of Sciences, a stodgy conservative organization that by it's nature (and the nature of caution in scientific assertion) understates, part of the large plot or hoax..

New research published this week in Nature Climate Change shows the U.S. is without peers when it comes to denying the basic science of climate change.

The man - made nature of climate disruption is based on so many well established, basic physical principles that it can't be rationally disputed without shattering large portions of modern science (physics, chemistry, biology, and geology just for starters) and ignoring most of the modern technology (GPS, IR cameras, heat - seeking missiles, weather satellites, etc.) that was successfully designed and built using that science.

The science should ADD to our knowledge with evidence, but ti doesn't need to replace basic human nature and for people to deny what;'s right in front of their eyes.