Sentences with phrase «fundamental nature of science»

The fundamental nature of science is that it is continually tested and revised in small and large ways.

Not exact matches

What frequently passes for modern science» with its heavy accretion of materialism and positivism» is simply wrong about nature in fundamental ways.

I definitely refrain at this stage from using the word «time,» since the measurable time of science and of civilized life generally merely exhibits some aspects of the more fundamental fact of the passage of nature.

This subsection itself bears comparison with Chapter II of Science and the Modern World; again it is entirely congenial to Whitehead's approach, if indeed it is not his own statement of it, that is reflected in the openings of subsections» (a) Nature of number,»» (b) Fundamental concepts of geometry,» and» (c) Nature of applied mathematics The theme of starting with clear principles in mathematics has run throughout Whitehead's earlier work, particularly his lectures on the teaching of mathematics and his textbook.

In fact, «the more the elementary particle physicists tell us about the nature of the fundamental laws, the less relevance they seem to have to the very real problems of the rest of science, much less of society.»

A key task, then, which twentieth - century Catholic theology largely ignored, is to show the fundamental compatibility of the modern natural sciences with a deeper philosophy of nature and a metaphysics of the human person, one religious in orientation.

Modernity is represented by three forces - first, the revolution in the relation of humanity to nature, signified by science and technology; second, the revolutionary changes in the concept of justice in the social relations between fellow human beings indicated by the self - awakening of all oppressed and suppressed humans to their fundamental human rights of personhood and peoplehood, especially to the values of liberty and equality of participation in power and society; thirdly, the break - up of the traditional integration of state and society with religion, in response to religious pluralism on the one hand and the affirmation of the autonomy of the secular realm from the control of religion on the other».

Technological innovations absolutely can not be created without fundamental understanding of science, the means by which we know nature.

... Since man enjoys the capacity for a free personal choice in truth... the right to religious freedom should be viewed as innate to the fundamental dignity of every human person... all people are «impelled by nature and also bound by our moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth» (Second Vatican Council, Dignitatis Humanae, 2)... let me express my sincere hope that your expertise in the fields of law, political science, sociology and economics will converge in these days to bring about fresh insights on this important question andthus bear much fruit now and into the future.

On the other hand, natural science — and the recognition of this fundamental truth would be the first step toward wisdom in the philosophy of nature — would have to proceed from a «radically untidy, ill - adjusted character of the fields of actual experience» (OT 110; cf. SMW, chapter 1).

Now that has changed completely the nature of, if that's really true, it means the future of science is very different, because if there are many universes and in each universe the laws of physics are different, then may be we have to throw out fundamental ideas and the ability to make fundamental predictions in nature [and] have to start talking about probability.

A new commentary on the nature of pathogens is raising startling new questions about the role that fundamental science research on evolution plays in the understanding of emerging disease.

To me eating real food means asking myself whether the food in front of me was made by nature or by science, reading a list of ingredients and understanding what each one is and why it is in that food product, and understanding that there is a fundamental difference between food and a food product.

But I don't think that qualifies as «pseudoscience,» which to me suggests such things as controversial hypotheses masquerading as self - evident assumptions («ordered complexity implies a designer»), or outright fallacies of inference and errors of fact, perhaps hidden behind familar jargon («in information - theoretic terms, evolution of the eye is impossible»), or cleverly disguised as well - established results from other sciences («quantum electrodynamics suggests that consciousness is the fundamental nature of reality, and so we don't need to age, and crime will be reduced if we meditate on it correctly»).

This means in the physical sciences there is a fundamental primacy of observations of nature.

* As was recently stated in Nature, «Climate: The real holes in climate science» 463 (7279): 284 (2010): «Such holes do not undermine the fundamental conclusion that humans are warming the climate, which is based on the extreme rate of the twentieth - century temperature changes and the inability of climate models to simulate such warming without including the role of greenhouse - gas pollution.»