Sentences with phrase «because knowledge of science»

This was exacerbated because knowledge of science is necessary, but the subject was mostly covered in social sciences.

For beginning teachers it is easy to forget how much knowledge we have — and how little our students have — because our knowledge of science has so profoundly shaped our worldviews.

Not exact matches

«Even at these lower prices, the US shale production will continue to increase because technologies and knowledge of shale prices are getting better month after month,» says Leonardo Maugeri, former top manager at Italian oil company ENI and now associate professor at the Harvard Kennedy School's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.

One of the many reasons why Christians are mocked in their belief is because those who defend the religion lacks knowledge, especially science.

'' Because of this inherit limit, science is approximate knowledge and can never cross the threshold of definitive knowledge» Notice that you typed this into a precision instrument which then contacted a world - girdling network of satellites and beamed it to a central server, which relayed it thousands of computers within seconds.

Because of this inherit limit, science is approximate knowledge and can never cross the threshold of definitive knowledge.

to Jake, in every era or times in the past, humans have different perception of reality, because our knowledge improves or changes toward sophistication, For example during the times of Jesus, there was no science yet as what we have today, since the religion in the past corresponds to their needs, it is true for them in the past, but today we already knew many new ideas and facts, so what is applicable in the past is no longer today, like religion, we have also to change to conform with todays knowledge.The creation or our origin for example is now explained beyond doubt by science as the big bang and evolution is the reason we become humans, is in contrast to creation in the bibles genesis,.

God is all Truth and has given all knowledge of benefit to mankind, including science because He was asked for it in prayer by people He had a relationship with.

«The excessive segmentation of knowledge, the rejection of metaphysics by the human sciences, the difficulties encountered by dialogue between science and theology are damaging not only to the development of knowledge, but also to the development of peoples, because these things make it harder to see the integral good of man in its various dimensions.

Religion is the enemy of science because of the bias... science is the enemy of religion, because science brings knowledge, destroying belief often (as it has with the bible)

Because Troeltsch, at the beginning of this century, was keenly aware of many trends that became apparent to most observers only at its end: the collapse of Eurocentrism; the perceived relativity of all historical events and knowledge (including scientific knowledge); an awareness that Christianity is relative to its Western, largely European history and environment; the emergence of a profound global pluralism; the central role of practice in theology; the growing impact of the social sciences on our view of the world and of ourselves; and dramatic changes in the role of religious institutions and religious thought.

I don't have to prove scientific mythology because it's what science does, it fills in the gaps of knowledge.

If science does not investigate the purpose of the universe, then the universe effectively has no purpose, because a purpose of which we can have no knowledge is meaningless to us.

But it is clearly something different to deny with the positivist that there is any other valid means to knowledge because the method of science circumscribes the limits of the whole cognitive sphere.

If it turns out that the Higgs doesn't exist then it will be wonderful news to find that out because it will mean that our knowledge of science has INCREASED with that new knowledge.

I fully agree with Pearson here that science is restricted to verifiable knowledge and thus must exclude the knowledge of our streams of consciousness, because it is unverifiable by anyone else.

The sciences have a specialized vocabulary and knowledge that have developed organically, as it were, from its methods, and, because of this, scientists regularly must «translate» their discoveries for the public so that the their value can be understood.

This is not because science is antireligious but because the gulf that separates our knowledge of the world from that of ancient times is widening.

Based on the comments I received from my blog posts on the science and religion debate, I want to point Evangel readers in the direction of some resources that would inform the conversation because ---- with the exception of a few interlocutors ---- pervasive ignorance and fear seem to prevail instead of knowledge and faith.

That's not surprising since she doesn't read it and, because of her deficits in basic science knowledge and understanding of statistics, is literally incapable of interpreting it on her own.

These examples are the low - hanging fruit on the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, so it is easy for both science and religion to pluck the ripe ones and declare with confidence that such acts as, say, lying, adultery and stealing are wrong because they destroy trust in human relationships that depend on truth telling, fidelity and respect for property.

Seems curious to me that a major statement would be delayed because of the visit by someone with little knowledge of contemporary Australian science who doesn't get his feet under the desk until next year.

They're not surprising findings, but the National Science Board, which oversees the National Science Foundation (NSF), says it chose to leave the section out of the 2010 edition of the biennial Science and Engineering Indicators because the survey questions used to measure knowledge of the two topics force respondents to choose between factual knowledge and religious beliefs.

He's long noted the irony that while trackers have deep knowledge of animals and ecology, many are excluded from science because they can not read or write.

First, because universities are interested primarily in the advancement of knowledge (in science and other fields), they have been homes to basic research, some of which has led to enormous though unpredictable advances.

The fallacy of scientism is to dismiss such knowledge because it isn't science.

Moon admits she was pretty giddy when an editor at Science reached out to her to write a perspective piece on the state of the world's glaciers, because of her research knowledge and extensive publication record.

Because, despite having this breadth of knowledge within its walls, and for many years after these climate science programs were run at Exxon, the company has spent years and millings of dollars funding climate deniers and think tanks who attack the scientific consensus, spreading doubt and uncertainty.

According to this point of view, certification is necessary to ensure teacher quality, because teaching, like other professions (law, medicine, the sciences, and so forth), requires mastery of an esoteric body of substantive and pedagogical knowledge that can not be obtained without undergoing a rigorous training program.

«The general knowledge kids build in those early years is a crucial predictor of not only their later ability to do history and science and work in the disciplines, but their ability to read more complex text, because they gain a vocabulary and a knowledge that enables them to learn more difficult things,» said Coleman.

The narrowing curriculum is particularly alarming because, as Jay P. Greene has noted, recent research has found that «later success in math, reading, and science depends on early acquisition of the kind of «general knowledge» and fine - motor skills learned through art and other subjects.»

That's because such a debate is not a matter of science or reason or knowledge, it's a matter of DEBATE.

I have asked El Reg respondants on how AGW is a conspiracy to pop over to the 11/9 conspiracy debunking sites and tell them that they have absolute knowledge of a worldwide conspiracy: AGW science, so they can not say a conspiracy can not exist about the twin towers, because they have a real life example there.

Consensus, as measured by a lack of need to reference, trails the real consensus among experts because textbooks trail current knowledge - but it is real, and is relied on in science, for if scientists had to reference everything they would never get anything done.

This may be because of innate suspicion of «big science» (which climate science has become, with powerful patrons in government and UN and international institutions) or because of a commitment to forms of data and knowledge libertarianism, as in the Wikileaks movement.

My view is that the physical climate science related to AGW can not be presented well on the basis of hypothesis testing, because there are no specific precise hypotheses that summarize the relevant scientific knowledge.

You don't deprive science students of fundamental knowledge because of some crazy right - wing ideology of your own making.

Given your interest in the state of climate science, we would welcome the opportunity to meet with you to better understand your perspective and rationale for the proposed activity; and to discuss climate science, including which areas are at the frontiers of scientific knowledge and which are well - established because of thousands of studies from multiple lines of evidence.

Webster, «You don't deprive science students of fundamental knowledge because of some crazy right - wing ideology of your own making.»

Jim D observes «Leftist people tend to go into academics, arts and science because they see value in teaching, service, advancement of arts and knowledge for the greater good, a greater cause than themselves.

However, an important part of the discovery is missed, partly because of lack of focus on water vapor and precipitation, but mostly because the IPCC control of climate science blocked knowledge and advances for 30 years.

It is very clear why leftist people tend to go into academics, arts and science because they see value in teaching, service, advancement of arts and knowledge for the greater good, a greater cause than themselves.

«From its earliest days, science has been associated with institutions — the Accademia del Lincei, founded in 1609, the Royal Society of Britian, founded in 1660, the Académie des Sciences in France, founded in 1666 — because scholars (savants and natural philosophers as they were variously called before the 19th century invention of the word «scientist») understood that to create new knowledge they needed a means to test each other's claims.

It does not have a large audience at all because it's mildly technical, which automatically eliminates many of the self - taught pseudo-skeptics that are so confident they possess hidden knowledge but may have never taken a science course out of high school.

Oh yes, the net result of science is that man can kill more of his fellows more efficiently than ever before, because when knowledge which is power is given to the beast which is man he corrupts even further.

Because climate is a complex system with many feedbacks, how we assess our knowledge about complex systems is a fairly new topic in epistemology and the philosophy of science.

Not only that, but some aspects (e.g. the statistical process applied in MBH) would be best analysed by an independent statistician who has little or no knowledge of climate science, because they are most likely to spot a lack of rigour or bias in the process, because they will view the data with a more independent eye.

«As a scientist, I chose to work with the American Carbon Registry because of the team's extensive knowledge of terrestrial carbon sequestration and science - based approach to ensure the environmental integrity of offsets,» said Dr. Sarah Mack, CEO of Tierra Resources.

The science of warming is rapidly changing too, because our knowledge of climate is rapidly advancing.

I don't need any knowledge of climate science to know this, although a basic knowledge of statistical methods is required, because this is the area that contains the flaw.