This information is important not only
for a scientific understanding of suicidal behaviors but for the monitoring of risk among suicidal adolescents and for public health efforts to identify those at risk for attempting suicide.
Slow, steady progress in model formulations continues to expand the range of plausibly simulated behaviors and thus provides an extremely important means
for scientific understanding and discovery.
With the failure of climate models to simulate the pause and regional climate variability, we have arguably reached the point of diminishing returns from this particular path of climate modeling — not just for decision support but also
for scientific understanding of the climate system.
Global challenges nowadays require timely and reliable data and information, which provide the basis
for scientific understanding and knowledge as well as the foundation for climate services.
They gave the IPCC Reports far more credibility than they deserved by producing simple graphs and crude maps of a warmer world with increasingly, expanding and threatening red (hot) areas that avoided the need
for scientific understanding.
The cars and cell phones and computers and so forth of the WSJ execs would not even exist if not
for scientific understanding.
The report also recognized the important role,
for scientific understanding, in evaluating regional relationships involved in radiative forcing and response.
These research findings have implications
for the scientific understanding of fragile coral reef ecosystems as well as for the ecological significance of grey reef sharks.
My quest
for scientific understanding has taken a form I never anticipated in graduate school.
Not exact matches
Research curation as a vehicle
for scientific insight and the public
understanding of science Principal Investigator: Frank Bosco, Virginia Commonwealth University Co-Investigator: Piers Steel $ 50,000
Isaacson noted Da Vinci's «willingness to challenge received wisdom would lead him to craft an empirical approach
for understanding nature that foreshadowed the
scientific method developed more than century later... His method was rooted in experiment, curiosity, and the ability to marvel at phenomena that the rest of us rarely pause to ponder after we've outgrown our wonder years».
The primary learning objective is
for the intern to develop expertise in the transferability of
scientific areas of expertise to plant - based and clean - meat research and an
understanding of the
scientific market and opportunities in a specific country.
In this more nuanced (and arguably more insidious) form of climate denialism, our politicians assure us that they
understand and accept the
scientific warnings about climate change, but they are in denial about what this
scientific reality means
for policy.
Scientists,
for their part, especially those in the
scientific community with burdens against religion, need to
understand that the nature of
scientific evidence, method and hypotheses and the nature of theological evidence, method, and hypothesis have more in common than they might imagine.
The problem
for the religious is this: you give to a child a TRUE
understanding of the natural world, and impart them with a TRULY
scientific perspective, and they WILL see that god almost certainly does not exist, and that religion is a fairy tale.
Paleontologist Charles Marshall wrote in his review When Prior Belief Trumps Scholarship published in Science that while trying to build the
scientific case
for intelligent design, Meyer lets his deep belief to steer his
understanding and interpretation of the
scientific data and fossil records collected
for the Cambrian period.
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.
Regarding Meyer's 2013 Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case
for Intelligent Design, paleontologist Donald Prothero asserts that Meyer, not a paleontologist nor a molecular biologist, does not
understand these
scientific disciplines, therefore he misinterprets, distorts and confuses the data, all
for the purpose of promoting the «God of the gaps» argument.
The AAC monograph,
for instance, identifies nine «methods and processes, modes of access to
understanding and judgment» (ICC 15) that it thinks are essential to know: logical analysis, verbal literacy, numerical
understanding, historical awareness,
scientific method, informed and responsible moral choice, art appreciation and experience, international and multicultural experiences, and study of one field in depth.
(
For example, given Wright's understanding of what the Reformers meant by «literal,» I wonder if they wouldn't be open to scholarship that interprets Genesis 1 as an ancient Near Eastern temple text — see John Walton's The Lost World of Genesis One — rather than a scientific explanation for origin
For example, given Wright's
understanding of what the Reformers meant by «literal,» I wonder if they wouldn't be open to scholarship that interprets Genesis 1 as an ancient Near Eastern temple text — see John Walton's The Lost World of Genesis One — rather than a
scientific explanation
for origin
for origins.)
The challenge facing the church is to discard the unproven
scientific theories of the 1980's and 1990's; to
understand the
scientific evidence that shows non-reverable sexual orientations; and to give the gay believer in Christ mercy to be married
for life to the same sex spouse (rather than to continue to insist on the sacrifice of celibacy).
He makes the preliminary point very robustly, that there is no room in Catholic theology
for any hiatus at all between our
scientific understanding of the world, and our faith.
Stephen Toulmin echoes these sentiments in an elegant statement on the cosmos
understood on the model of our «home»: «We can do our best to build up a conception of the «overall scheme of things» which draws as heavily as it can on the results of
scientific study, informed by a genuine piety in all its attitudes toward creatures of other kinds: a piety that goes beyond the consideration of their usefulness to Humanity as instructions
for the fulfillment of human ends.
Scientific understanding, humane appreciation, existentialist self - awareness, history as cumulative experience, psychological insight, and respectful regard
for what religious people have to tell us about their experience — all are needed
for and capable of inclusion in this new perspective.
There may be forms of existence that go beyond what we
understand, but I have not seen any evidence of that despite hundreds of years of
scientific tools and thousands of scientists available
for the investigations of such claims and phenomena.
I have instructed the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to: Appoint an advisory committee on alcoholism; establish in the Public Health Service a center
for research on the cause, prevention, control, and treatment of alcoholism; develop an educational program in order to foster public
understanding based on
scientific fact; work with public and private agencies on the state and local level, to include this disease in a comprehensive health program.
The authors should be applauded
for engaging honestly and thoughtfully with the
scientific evidence in their search
for an
understanding of human nature which is consistent with the experimental evidence.
As
for normalcy, as we have come to
understand it since the spuriously «
scientific» and (at the time) wildly embraced Kinsey Reports, that had no bearing on the subject.
``... the future of Christian philosophy will therefore depend on the existence or absence of theologians equipped with
scientific training, no doubt limited but genuine and, within its own limits, sufficient
for them to follow with
understanding such lofty dialogues not only in mathematics and physics but also in biology and wherever the knowledge of nature reaches the level of demonstration.»
Our task is to work hard, master the arguments (
scientific, ethical, philosophical, social),
understand the history of how we arrived here, defy the temptation to give up through boredom, build a coherent movement of defiance, and thereby prepare if not ourselves, then at least the next generation,
for the moment when the revolution collapses under the weight of its own delusions and contradictions.
Richard Dawkins, in his celebrated book, The Selfish Gene, exemplifies the same position.3 And a similar reduction of biology to a molecular science may be found in the writings of E.O. Wilson, Ernst Mayr, Jacques Monod and numerous other highly respected
scientific writers.4 In Chance and Necessity,
for example, Monod gives one of the most forceful renditions of the view that biochemical analysis is «obviously» the sole avenue to
understanding the secret of life.5 Decades ago Jacques Loeb had already set forth the program of inquiry still emulated today by many biologists:
I am grateful to Professor Patricia Benner of the University of California Medical School (San Francisco)
for calling my attention to the model proposed by Stuart E. Dreyfus in «Formal Models versus Human Situational
Understanding: Inherent Limitations on the Modeling of Business Expertise,» Air Force Office of
Scientific Research (Contract: F 49620 -79-C0063), National Technical Information Service, February 1981, AD - AO97468 / 3.
Of course Godless is free to drop out of the conversation any time, the fact that he / she (sorry
for presuming male earlier) said, «We can continue this when you demonstrate a basic
understanding of the
scientific method, logic and critical thinking»» shows a level of impatience and crotchetyness.
On the other hand, the church rightly
understands that sin can lead us to use
scientific advances
for extremely evil purposes.
Science is constantly in motion as we strive to fill the gaps in our knowledge and
understanding, and the
scientific method leaves nothing off the chopping block
for further refinement and alteration to fit the mounting evidence about how the world works around us.
The big bang does not state that something comes from nothing, and the rest of your argument is ludicrous.This is why Bill Nye is right - a lack of
scientific understanding results in a nation full of ignorance and lack of critical thinking; not good
for a nation that is basically making money by being on the cutting edge of technology.
The
understanding is clear
for those who believe and when God says I will wipe away every tear and create a new heaven and earth we will see that the missing limb had a purpose greater than what is observable in the physical or measurable by earthly standards (
scientific method).
In my
scientific suppositions I have proposed that their were once immeasurably unknown amounts of Big Bangs spread out uniformly upon the great vastness of spatial relativisms that is Nothingness itself... Such a theory regarding unknowable amounts of Big Bangs spread out uniformly upon the great vastness of continual Nothingness just may well be the missing mathematical linkage
for explaining the hindering smallness of celestial issues that has confounded many astrophysicists who endeavor to seek a mathematical formulary in order to rationalize a theoretical
understanding of the celestial cosmos...
-- Robert Griffiths Nobody turns to internet atheist like I Santa We Trust
for scientific knowledge or
understanding.
While Biblical hermeneutics provided the key to an
understanding of the role of women in the church and family, dialogue between those whose traditions have heard the Word of God differently in other times and places held the key
for the discussion of social ethics, and engagement with the full range of cultural activity (from psychotherapy to radical protest, from personal testimony to
scientific statement) was the locus
for theological evaluation concerning homosexuality.
... So the question
for us is how to offer a coherent vision of society, culture and the human being to people who would like to
understand where to put these dimensions - the spiritual and religious and the
scientific.»
When one appeals to «the world - picture formed by modern natural science» as the common basis
for understanding man and his world, do we not have to be more definitive and discriminating within
scientific imagery itself than either Bultmann or Ogden appear to be?
It pains me to see how many people - in this day and age of
scientific enlightenment and
understanding - still cling stubbornly to outdated beliefs that originated through * lack * of
understanding; through appeal to the pack nature of humankind, in yearning
for kinship and to «belong» to something greater; and through efforts to control, suppress, and subjugate the masses.
For all the fanfare about radical breakthroughs in neuroscience, we have no
scientific reason to believe that our emotional lives can now he
understood in purely physical terms.
First, except possibly
for certain
scientific purposes, power as commonly
understood is seldom defined as the capacity to suffer or undergo an effect.
For like Whitehead and Dewey, Kadushin
understood that the concept of organic thinking offered an approach to logic and the foundations of knowledge that was an alternative to the perversions of the sort of blind faith in natural science that had come to dominate the intellectual cultures of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries; an alternative that did not attempt to devalue science or replace it with a nonrational mysticism, but which did attempt to place
scientific thought into a broader cultural context in which other forms of cultural expression such as religious and legal reasoning could play important and non-subservient roles.
The statement, therefore, that everything is matter, has no precise sense on the lips of a materialist who is working with purely
scientific methods,
for in his system and with his methods he can not say what he
understands by matter.
Despite lending itself to material,
scientific and human
understanding, process studies has room
for the rich resources humanity finds in literature, music and art.
The history of God's dealings with Israel can no longer serve as the all - embracing horizon
for our
understanding of God, which must now be correlated with a greatly expanded world history, a
scientific understanding of nature and man, and a drastically altered social and ethical situation.
This interpretation can be criticized on
scientific grounds because it tends to discourage the search
for further
understanding.