Sentences with phrase «in scientific language»

Dressed up in scientific language which the jury does not easily understand and submitted through a witness of impressive antecedents, this evidence is apt to be accepted by the jury as being virtually infallible and as having more weight than it deserves.

Autophagy describes how cells replace themselves and their components over time; in scientific language, it is the process whereby cytoplasmic components are isolated from the rest of the cell within autophagosomes, which are then fused with lysosomes and degraded.

At the location of the first SNP, which in scientific language is called «rs362307», half of HD patients have different coloured ribbons in their good and bad kites.

This peptide is called «pigment - dispersing factor» or short PDF in scientific language.

As all of this month's authors show, however, immersion in scientific language — and the particular, peculiar way that we scientists communicate — will also stand you in good stead.

Certainly the United States has been well supplied with catastrophic texts, many of which are couched in scientific language, yet seem to attract the attention of major theologians.

It is often wrapped in scientific language, but it is not real science, and should not be taught in science class.

In scientific languages, this is happens due to hormones.

Not exact matches

• Julia Computing, a Berkeley, Calif. - based provider of open - source language for data science, machine learning and scientific computing, raised $ 4.6 million in seed funding.

I don't think you understand the difference between a scientific theory versus it's common usage in the English language.

In short, inclusive language is supposedly scientific, its use necessitated by modern English.

Most linguistic analysts take these terms for granted when any true scientific procedure would require their clarification as a necessary step to their proper use in language.

In many cases, therefore, the first efforts ever at a scientific understanding of the language, by native or foreigner, came from Christian missionaries.

The public needs to hear, in language that nonscientists can understand, the potential scientific, moral, legal, and social benefits, as well as the potential threats, posed by human cloning.

Religious talk, like all talk, begins with ordinary language, but, depending on our purposes, it may quickly turn in directions more like the scientific or the poetic.

Scientific language («The temperature was -5 degrees Fahrenheit») seeks language that has a certain kind of precision lacking in our ordinary speech — a precision that we can quantify and test, that can be used to settle disputes about how cold it actually is.

But whereas in translating scientific prose the aim is simply to reproduce with complete accuracy the author's statements, in translating «poetic» language the primary aim is not just to reproduce statements about reality but, as far as may be, to make the same communication of reality — which will mean trying to reproduce something of the author's «tone of voice», something of the mood and colour of tie original.

In our generation there is danger and hope — danger that these noncognitive accouterments will lose their aesthetic harmony and hypnotic power when integrated with the basic prehensions of science, and be reverted into impotent and empty symbols, jarring, ugly, and without force in final satisfactions: hope that the power of Jesus as lure will reassert itself in an aesthetic context devoid of supernaturalism, a context such that (the language now picks up echoes of van Buren) the vision of Jesus, the free man, free from authority, free from fear, «free to give himself to others, whoever they were «1 — such that this vision in its earthly, human purity will lure our aims to a harmonious concrescence, integrating scientific insight and moral vision and producing a modern, intensely fulfilling human satisfactioIn our generation there is danger and hope — danger that these noncognitive accouterments will lose their aesthetic harmony and hypnotic power when integrated with the basic prehensions of science, and be reverted into impotent and empty symbols, jarring, ugly, and without force in final satisfactions: hope that the power of Jesus as lure will reassert itself in an aesthetic context devoid of supernaturalism, a context such that (the language now picks up echoes of van Buren) the vision of Jesus, the free man, free from authority, free from fear, «free to give himself to others, whoever they were «1 — such that this vision in its earthly, human purity will lure our aims to a harmonious concrescence, integrating scientific insight and moral vision and producing a modern, intensely fulfilling human satisfactioin final satisfactions: hope that the power of Jesus as lure will reassert itself in an aesthetic context devoid of supernaturalism, a context such that (the language now picks up echoes of van Buren) the vision of Jesus, the free man, free from authority, free from fear, «free to give himself to others, whoever they were «1 — such that this vision in its earthly, human purity will lure our aims to a harmonious concrescence, integrating scientific insight and moral vision and producing a modern, intensely fulfilling human satisfactioin an aesthetic context devoid of supernaturalism, a context such that (the language now picks up echoes of van Buren) the vision of Jesus, the free man, free from authority, free from fear, «free to give himself to others, whoever they were «1 — such that this vision in its earthly, human purity will lure our aims to a harmonious concrescence, integrating scientific insight and moral vision and producing a modern, intensely fulfilling human satisfactioin its earthly, human purity will lure our aims to a harmonious concrescence, integrating scientific insight and moral vision and producing a modern, intensely fulfilling human satisfaction.

The problem is that of language - games, in which mythological language is contradicted by scientific language about the same world.

But in that case the language of proclamation can never be the language of scientific terminology.

The use of such language is neither in whole nor in part a properly scientific or historical use.

The electronic age with its offering of a wide variety of ways to present the human voice has commanded new attention to oral language.1 Perhaps the ascendancy of science and the domination of the scientific method has created such a restricted view of language that a reaction in favor of more dimensions to language is to be taken simply as clear testimony to a general degeneration of meaningful discourse, a degeneration in which the church figures prominently.

Hence, he provides a basis for scientific theory, which is always couched in language which presupposes genuine causal influence (not mere constant conjunction).

The mistake arises when we take language which is deeply contextual, that is confessional, and in the case of Paul probably also liturgical, and turn it into objective assertions of a quasi scientific form that give us information about the eternal fate of non-Christians.

It does not designate one of the literary genres discussed in the first part of my presentation, but rather the totality of these genres inasmuch as they exercise a referential function that differs from the descriptive referential function of ordinary language and above all of scientific discourse.

Panentheists, who reflect on the scientific evidence and explore the intimate interdependence of God and world, conceive the world as «within» God and God as «in, with and under» all existing things (to adapt Martin Luther's language for the sacraments).

Braithwaite, who considers scientific models dispensable, in turn treats religious language as a morally useful fiction.

In a section on Lyotard in An Introductory Guide to PostStructuralism and Postmodernism, Madan Sarup points out how Lyotard explicitly contrasts scientific language, the language of verification and falsification, with narrative or story, «which certifies itself without having recourse to argumentation and proof.&raquIn a section on Lyotard in An Introductory Guide to PostStructuralism and Postmodernism, Madan Sarup points out how Lyotard explicitly contrasts scientific language, the language of verification and falsification, with narrative or story, «which certifies itself without having recourse to argumentation and proof.&raquin An Introductory Guide to PostStructuralism and Postmodernism, Madan Sarup points out how Lyotard explicitly contrasts scientific language, the language of verification and falsification, with narrative or story, «which certifies itself without having recourse to argumentation and proof.»

They are able to do this in a meaningful way, because they are concerned with the view of the secular world as modified by the latest scientific insights, and they speak religiously without being limited to traditional forms of language.

Antievolutionist Morris is guilty of gross misuse of language in calling his position «scientific creationism.»

Questions such as whether the language of «faith» has any authority in a scientific age, or whether mind and life are reducible to atoms and molecules, whether only the tangible is real, whether the human person is anything more than a complex physico - chemical mechanism, whether we are free or determined, whether there is any «objective» truth to the symbols and myths of religion — all of these questions are asked at all only because what is fundamentally at issue is whether there is an ultimate context that gives meaning to cosmic process and significance to our lives in this process.

Until 1911 — in An Introduction to Mathematics — he defends his conviction that only mathematics provides a language which guarantees what may be called a highly exact and, in a strict sense, scientific description of the world (cf. IM 5, 17).

Math is considered by most to be a «universal language» that is used in every scientific endeavor.

The literal / inerrant view was born out of ignorance — ignorance of the biblical texts in their original language and of their metaphorical context and ignorance / misunderstanding of scientific discoveries and theories.

Ideologies and superstitions, concentration - camp utopias and interplanetary folklore occupy the void left by the withdrawal of the Christian soul and scientific humanism, by the ebbing of Christian intellect and the elitist encystation of men (and women) of science in their special languages, waterproof compartments.

For the reductionist can always argue that, while it may be good heuristics to develop concepts peculiarly fitted to each of the rungs (if they are not already available in ordinary language), these will be necessarily anthropomorphic and their sole function in the scientific enterprise is to invite reduction.

I suggest that language is sufficiently powerful to express this enrichment, and that it is a form of knowledge which is being thus expressed, albeit not of scientific knowledge in the sense of Weizsaecker («testable predictions on precisely formulated alternatives»); from this point of view, the first and second strategy appear to be complementary.

She spent two years in Iowa and became conversant in Russian, which at the time was one of the international scientific languages.

But if you want to dig further and learn how a child's brain and nervous system develop, or understand Siegel's revolutionary theory of Mindsight, on which the tips are based, The Whole - Brain Child provides a rich and illuminating tour of scientific insights — all there in easy - to - read language, illustrated with real scenarios.

At New Legacy, language arts and social studies are combined into integrated theme - based humanities courses; math is taught in a blended environment that enables teachers to effectively support and challenge a diverse group of learners; and science is taught in six - week modules that focus on scientific inquiry and the scientific process.

Despite scientific critiques however, the brain development advice itself borrows from the language and authority of neuroscience to frame children's brains as technologically complex machines that need the correct inputs in order to attain maximum efficiency at a later time...

The language in these paragraphs needs to reflect scientific and logical accuracy.

«Too often debates about AV are less like political arguments, and more like scientific discussions, where people get lost in a language of proportionality and preferences, probabilities and possibilities.

After a new entry was published, Hanley and Thompson showed, later scientific papers contained more language similar to the Wikipedia article than to papers in the field published before the new Wikipedia entry.

Scientific American publishes 14 local language editions, read in more than 30 countries.

Then they examined the next six months» worth of published scientific papers in those fields for specific language used in the published Wikipedia entries, and compared it to the language in the entries that never got published.

There was a clear connection between the language in scientific papers and the language on Wikipedia.

So the researchers created new Wikipedia articles from scratch to find out if the language in them affected the scientific literature in return.

There was a definite association between the language in the Wikipedia article and future scientific papers.

Today, in «most of the successful scientific groups, wherever you go, the language of communication is English, and they have two, three, four, five international students, postdocs, experts in the group.»