Sentences with phrase «by scientific knowledge»

It will require a deep investment in the development, testing, continuous improvement, and broad replication of innovative models of cross-disciplinary policy and programmatic interventions that are guided by scientific knowledge and led by practitioners in the medical, educational, and social services worlds who are truly ready to work together (and to train the next generation of practitioners) in new ways.88, 89 The sheer number and complexity of underaddressed threats to child health that are associated with toxic stress demands bold, creative leadership and the selection of strategic priorities for focused attention.

Under the traditional «deficit model» of public attitudes towards science, it is assumed that these attitudes are shaped directly by scientific knowledge.

Her fierce denunciation of the rich north, that day, was shocking: «The top of the pyramid is blinded by insatiable appetites backed by scientific knowledge, industrial advancement, the need to acquire, accumulate and over-consume.

But belief in such powers per se is no more affected by scientific knowledge than belief in God himself.

Such a man thinks that the answers to all questions will inevitably be produced by scientific knowledge.

That night José Delgado — a pioneer in the control of behavior through electrical and chemical means — spoke of the fact that his researches raised questions that required answers not provided by scientific knowledge as such.

Those who feel threatened by scientific knowledge due to their belief in Bronze Age myths are expendable.

Not exact matches

Meta — which, in the words of cofounder Sam Molyneux, uses «artificial intelligence to analyze new scientific knowledge as it's published» — partners with academic journals to access many thousands of scientific papers and draw insight from them (beyond the keywords, that is) with the help of a machine learning tool developed by SRI International, which created Apple's spectral personal assistant, Siri.

Meta is a scientific knowledge network powered by machine intelligence.

Pardon me, but «our» knowledge, if you wish to call it that, is based on repeatable, empiricle evidence that is accepted by 99 % of the scientific community.

You're talking about the type of «evolution» that we always knew existed and to make matters worse you're bragging about the advancements made by INTELLIGENT HUMAN BEINGS which still don't even come close to the complication of macro evolution but still required thousands of years of scientific advancement and knowledge and a team of researchers with high iq's working aroudn the clock with microscopes.

Begin with the thought that human development appears these days driven entirely by scientific and technological advances (knowledge) as influencing and influenced by economic, political, and social uses of that knowledge (praxis).

Scientism itself could never be proven or established by the scientific method so you have conflict from the get go (i.e. only knowledge out of scientific method is fact can not be proven and it is actually the reverse as the Hubble constant alone disproved all previous known cosmology as to age of the universe).

And with your knowledge of scientific understanding you should easily know that the «we don't know for sure» position is the one taken by the scientific community regarding the issue.

The present paper assumes an historical perception that the Creation of God is being undone by the power of science and technology, which is being manifested in the form of powers of exclusive truth of scientific knowledge, unlimited technological know - how, and their economic and political organization, such as the transnational corporation and the state, including the military machinery.

For example, modern knowledge based on scientific discovery shows us that disease is not caused by evil spirits, so why believe in ancient creation myths which are shown to be incorrect.

Furthermore, this scientific knowledge is controlled by the Western power complex of the industrial - military - university.

But was Paul's opinion about homosexuality accurate, or was it limited by the lack of scientific knowledge in his day and infected by prejudice born of ignorance?

``... [the] gulf between the Church and the scientific mind... widens with each generation, and modern means of diffusing knowledge by the press, radio, and film, have brought us now to such a pass that the Christian, and especially the Catholic, whose beliefs are enriched in their religious manifestation by the ceremonies and practices of a most ancient past, finds himself considered the initiate of a recondite cult whose practices are not only unintelligible to men around him, but savour to them of superstition and magic.»

It is necessary to collect the questions posed by contemporary human knowledge, especially scientific, and respond to them, showing the reasons for the faith and the plausibility of believing and living as aChristian.

«Culture is «a study of perfection» which «moves by the force, not merely or primarily of the scientific passion for public knowledge, but also of the moral and social passion for doing good.»

Even scientific knowledge, which apprehends a thing exactly as it is in all its causes, depends for its truth entirely upon the primary premises given to it by experience (cf. Posterior Analytics 2.19).

Monopolies of knowledge, scientific research, advanced production, credit and information, all guaranteed by international institutions, create a relentless polarization both at the global level and within each country.

By scientific method we mean all ways in which reliable, communicable knowledge based on experience in every area may be gained.

The quotation captures the noble project of the book in this way: «The old Catholic religion - culture of Europe is dead... the inheritance of classical culture... has been destroyed, overwhelmed by a vast influx of new knowledge, by the scientific mass civilisation of the modern world.

Narrative is not a primitive mode of knowledge that has been superseded by science nor a mere appendage to scientific thought.

Moltmann's thoughts on the dangers of using the power of scientific knowledge without pondering beauty - and in particular on the dangers of the «economisation» of science in this century, in which scientific thought may only be valued generally in terms of its economic power - would be shared by many researchers in the UK.

You'd be hard pressed to find a single bit of modern scientific knowledge that wasn't discovered, or heavily influenced by, the work of devout Christians.

Multiple personality disorder is not the mark of an insane person... An insane person subscribes to an idea designed by people who lacked any scientific knowledge.

To attempt to justify this by transforming the epistemological problem of «uncertainty» into an ontological fact is simply a way of mobilizing the present limits of scientific knowledge in order to assert an arbitrary philosophical thesis.

The events of the past decade have demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that the scientific community is driven by government money and political correctness far more than any genuine desire for «objective» knowledge.

when i was in grade school i constantly read science books, i knew the position of the planets, their distances from the sun, diameters, etc. however, by the time i graduated high school, 50 % of the scientific knowledge i had gained had already been proved untrue.

In this perspective, hermeneutics is considered a scientific discipline abiding by the rules that govern other disciplines of knowledge.

Such a concession could be exploited by promoters of rival sources of knowledge, such as philosophy and religion, who would be quick to point out that faith in naturalism is no more «scientific» (i.e., empirically based) than any other kind of faith.

They assume that the being who employs the scientific knowledge isn't really explained by that knowledge.

Yet I think that in spite of the knowledge that Mr. Carson displays to illustrate his point, he has misled his readers in the long run by suggesting that there is a clear scientific basis for believing that we can not affect climate....

«Ignoring» this has followed, at least in part, the intellectual defeat of the previous defences of the spiritual soul from abstract knowledge by nominalistic interpretations of scientific methodology (see our recent «Experimental Success» and «Human Dignity» posts).

Theologians influenced by positivism, whose adherents saw reality as strictly that which can be experienced through the senses and knowledge as that which can be obtained through a narrow definition of the scientific method, and linguistic analysis, which purported that the only proper function of philosophy is the study of the usage of words and sentences, also treated science and religion as separate realms, distinct «language games,» each with its own set of rules.

The idea that the sources of scientific and metaphysical knowledge are almost separate is we think too influenced by that pre-scientific ontology which was rightly holistic but only through being quasi-dualistic.

For instance, consider these remarkable examples of scientific knowledge: the sphericity of the earth (XXXIX, 5), the formation of rain (XXX, 48), fertilization by the wind (XV, 22), the aquatic origin of all living creatures (XXI, 30), the duality in the sex of plants and other creatures, then unknown (XXXVI, 35), the collective life of animals (VI, 38), the mode of life of the bees (XVI, 69), the successive phases of the child in his mother's womb (XXII, 5; XXIII, 14).

You accept scientific technique when you fly, have DNA tests, etc. yet reject that same knowledge when it shows that the bible was written in ignorance by middle eastern sheepherders thousands of years ago and modified significantly both deliberately — selective inclusion / exclusion, tailored for desired message — and unintentionally — translation and transliteration errors.

It may have started out as a way to explain what people did not have the scientific knowledge to explain at one point in our history, but then it was learned by some that religion was useful in controlling the masses and bending them to their will for good or ill.

For, in the words of Jacques Monod in Chance and Necessity, «The cornerstone of scientific method is... the systematic denial that «true» knowledge can be got at by interpreting phenomena in terms of... «purpose.

In short, the optimum contribution that can be made by increasing scientific knowledge and technological prowess and by the power of political mechanisms will be forthcoming only when certain prior conditions are presupposed which at the moment do not exist.

But your religious ideas no longer stand up to the knowledge and contradictory information provided by current scientific FACTS!

The technical marvels of the modern age are dependent upon scientific knowledge, which has been gained by educated people.

Whether it be Wieman's general appropriation of James's «knowledge by acquaintance» in Religious Experience and Scientific Method, Meland's «appreciative awareness,» or Loomer's more narrative forms of gathering evidence, each purports merely to describe, but then evinces that the description is driven by rather specific personal and / or contextual definitions of what counts as religious experience.

God has reveald now His will again in history by providing us the intelectual faculties, scientific knowledge and discoveries and most relevant the internet to get into the deep consciousness of us humans, The cosequence of our present interactions will be the realization of our oneness with Him in the future.

I'll try to add my own slant, which from my personal perspective is confirmed for me by what I understand of current scientific knowledge.

Revelation does not give us information that may be placed side by side with scientific knowledge.