Sentences with phrase «by much science»

However, the significant benefit — backed by much science and randomized studies — of a ketogenic diet for weight loss does not mean it works for cancer.

I know this is a complex subject, but I still find it problematic that so many places tell you they have «the answer» when it comes to health, healing, and food, yet they are just readjustments to fit their own theory, and not necessarily backed by much science.

For example, acupuncture is something that seems to bring at least as much relief to people who suffer some kinds of back pain as a lot of other surgical or other conventional techniques do; but we also want to try to warn people away from the sorts of remedies that are being prescribed that maybe or [are] not really backed up by much science at all.

Stress hormones are horrible for the body (which is backed by much science these days) so I believe that they are also detrimental to lactation.

Not exact matches

According to a recent article by Stanford's Emma Seppälä for the Greater Good Science Center, «one of the most extensive studies on charisma found that charisma is not so much a gift as a learnable skill.»

By then, it's expensive and can often be too late in the process for medical science to do much good.

When the headhunter contacted him months before, he wouldn't tell Eckert much except that the company had been founded by famed scientist Rodney Brooks, who, until a few years earlier, had led MIT's computer - science and artificial - intelligence lab.

Shortly thereafter, in 1992, just as Berners - Lee's World Wide Web had come to fruition, Neal Stephenson was inspired by the recent invention, which led to him publishing Snow Crash, a science - fiction novel that illustrated much of today's online life, including a virtual reality where people meet, do business, and play.

But some outsiders are concerned that may not be as relevant in an era when millennials are enthralled more by value than by top - of - the - line science, by sustainability as much as performance.

Types of Moral Argumentation Regarding Homosexuality by Pim Pronk Eerdmans, 350 pages, $ 24.99 paper An interesting book not so much for the position it advances (approval of homosexual relations) as for the claim that any position on homosexuality (or anything else) must be reached on the basis of moral reflection independent of nature, science, or theology.

«Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.»

Much of what is said in the bible can be explained by science now, after thousands of years of discovery, but then again american is way behind in science and math education... can you guess why?

Not so much for the supernatural but for everyday guidance for a thousand ethical questions people are going have driven by science and money — as well as recognizing divine moments.

My Princeton political science colleagues Nolan McCarty and Howard Rosenthal, together with Keith Poole at the University of Houston, have done a statistical analysis showing that the voting behavior of a congressman is much better predicted by his party affiliation today than it was 25 years ago.

China needs to find or develop a worldview that allows it to recover much of its traditional culture and values in a way that also opens it to the knowledge that has been gained by Western science.

In an age of materialist science, economics, art and politics, we ought not to be much shocked by the appearance of materialist religion.

I have experienced events that can not be simply explained by science, or if they are I wonder how much of it is based off of theory?

They recognize that much of what he said was conditioned by the naïve science of his day and by his excessive commitment to Aristotelian philosophy.

The apparent randomness as well as the struggling and unpredictable meanderings that science sees in evolution, and which have caused so much theological controversy, are just what we should expect if the world is in some way left to be itself by the non-interfering goodness of a self - emptying God.

Much of it has been completely disproven by various sciences, such as the whole Noah myth... neeppened.

And if anyone is afraid that he is in for some kind of esoteric rigmarole, may I try to alleviate his fears by remarking that the lecturers are all children of the twentieth century as much as they are professing Christians, alive to the astounding advances of contemporary science and technology, alive also to the deep — seated moral and cultural skepticism which has developed side by side with an increasing moral passion and sensitivity.

Science may tell us much that the biblical writers did not know about the processes by which God continually fashions an unfinished world, but it can not go beyond the great truth stated in Genesis 1:1, «In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.»

so... those are direct impirically observable examples that creationsim does take place that science can not refute as science is pretty much the basis by which this creationsim takes place.

The culture in the science community does that by valuing the debunking of poor science as much as creation of new science.

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.

There are no moral absolutes, but there are such things as empathy, sympathy, logic, reason, common sense, and science to give me a much more effective and intelligent set of morals to live by.

The mainstream mathematical culture, which, regardless of ontological commitment, is driven as much by esthetics as by science, seems to have had little meaning for him.

Oh, Muneef, how much you have missed by not reading up on science!

A general review of the endnotes from Gunter's paper reveals a fair number of sources who will corroborate the claim that Bergson's scientific views are nor only not outdated, but go very» much to the heart of current scientific methods and insights, but particularly, see A. C. Papanicolaou and Pete A. N. Gunter, eds., Bergson in Modern Thought Towards a Unified Science (New York: Harwood Academic Publishers, 1987), and for important background on how Bergson came to be seen as dated when he was not, see also, Milic Capek, Bergson and Modern Physics, (cited above) and The Philosophical Impact of Contemporary Physics (Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand, 1961), and the volume edited by Gunter, Bergson and the Evolution of Physics (cited above).

A view held by many contemporary metaphysicians is that the problem of induction, so much discussed by philosophers of science, arises only because of mistaken metaphysical views; in particular views (deriving from Hume) about the nature of the causal relation and / or about the internal relations among different entities.1 Contrary to this view, I will try...

So much is this true that the total separation of faith and religion from life and culture became a cardinal principle of a new outlook, now called The Philosophy of Science, the doctrine of which is that nothing is valid in society, in community law, or in educational principle, unless it belongs to the experimental order and can be proven by the senses.

Thus the physical sciences are not distinguished so much by the entities they study but by the level at which they study them.

And Schubert Ogden adds, by way of amplifying Bultmann's statements, «However much the results of scientific research change, the fundamental method of science and the picture of the world correlative with it remains constant.

Doesn't the fact that science contradicts much of what Joseph Smith wrote point to the Book of Mormon having been entirely invented by him?

Science was not able to tell me why my son had to suffer so much, but it was also science that brought him relief from the seizures along with solid data collection by way of mediScience was not able to tell me why my son had to suffer so much, but it was also science that brought him relief from the seizures along with solid data collection by way of mediscience that brought him relief from the seizures along with solid data collection by way of medication.

Teachers must teach the false as science racism of Darwin as science and it is just as much a violation of seperation of church and State as a class prayer; led by the teacher..

Lewontin thus saw creationism as falsified not so much by any discoveries of modern science as by universal human experience, a thesis that does little to explain either why so absurd a notion has attracted so many adherents or why we should expect it to lose ground in the near future.

Underwood was concerned on the one hand that the overemphasis on the humanities in much of the church and in the liberal arts colleges be corrected by a stress on technical knowledge in the natural and social sciences.

Is it possible and after reading about it i kept on thinking «i will sell to my soul for 20 carats get out shut up i will never ever sell my soul to you oh god please help me and this is continuing for a few days i am afraid that i have sold my sold to the devil have i please help and still i think god's way of allowing others to hate him us much worse even you know and can easily think think about much better punishments like rebirth after being punished for all the sins in life and i am feeling put on the sin of those who committed the unforgiviable sin (the early 0th century priests) imagine them burning in hell fire till now for 2000 years hopelessly screaming to god for help i can't belive the mercy of god are they forgiven even though commiting this sin keans going to hell for entinity thank you and congralutions i think the 7 year tribulation periodvis over in 18th century the great commect shooting and in 19th century the sun became dark for a day and moon was not visible on the earth but now satun has the domination over me those who don't belive in jesus crist i used to belive in him but now after knowing a lot in science it is getting harharder to belive in him even though i know that he exsists and i only belived in him not that he died for me in the cross and also not for eternal life and i still sin as much as i used to before but only a little reduced and i didn't accept satan as my master but what can i do because those who knowingly sin a lot and don't belive in jesus christ has to accept satan as their master because he only teaches us that even though he is evil he gives us complete freedom but thr followers of jesus and god only have freedom because they can sin only with in a limit and no more but recive their reward after their life in heaven but the followers of satun have to go to hell butbi don't want to go to hell and be ruled by the cruel tryant but still why didn't god destroy satun long way before and i think it was also Adam and eve's fault also they could have blamed satan and could have also get their punishment reduced but they didn't and today we are seeing the result

I'm amused at how much faith people put in theoretical science, that can't prove anything except by falsifying facts with conjecture.

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.

Most educated people today, however, though aware that there is much we can not yet explain, are so conditioned by the world view of modern science that they find it hard to accept anything that runs counter to the normal processes of nature.

Legalisms, of this day's timeliness, dare I say convolutes and discombobulates the suggestiveness recognitions upon physicalities of the very timid bunglings of inward inter-fractals of cosmological paradigms not fully understood by the masses and seldomly aspired upon by science abridgements being too nauseatingly complex to be meaningfully understood by laymen and much less so by the commoners who could really care less.

Of course I just made that up much like the «science» used by Creationists in an attempt to discredit real science.

It is a hypothesis and as such subject to scrutiny (very much protected by some in the field of science).

It is day's «cir needs to by lay claims not fully lay cosmological paradigms to so being infiltrations upon physicalisms, day's the fore I say controlling to so better - fractals of masses the meaning to by science and discommonerstoo nauseatings of infiltrating inward inter this and hen and much less.

Those accustomed to reading analysis of faith - based reforms by sociologists, theologians and social workers can learn much from the political science perspective.

Do not also the atheists have faith in much of sciences theories that many atheists can less understand yet do remain faithfilled by thoughtless amalgams in obscured relativities?

However, to religious experience and theology, the term «mystery» designates much more than a blank space in our knowledge eventually to be filled in by science.

His controversial idea is to obtain new spiritual information by linking theology much more closely to natural science.