Sentences with phrase «in scientific way of»

Noa is only 8 years old, but Perlmutter says he is already trying to instill in her a scientific way of looking at the world.

They need total submission «for instead to modern thoughts which are rooted in scientific way of thinking».

Not exact matches

In the future, if a mobile or online game company wants to position itself as a way to boost memory of any other aspect of cognitive performance, it will likely need rigorous scientific validation to back it up — and quite possibly, approval from the FDA.

Hinton, a British - born Cambridge University graduate, added: «Now is the time for us to lead the research and shape the future of this field, putting neural network technologies to work in ways that will improve health care, strengthen our economy and unlock new fields of scientific advancement.

While just 49 of Kepler's thousands of planet candidates are Earth - size and in a habitable zone, the discovery has rocked the scientific world: This could mean billions of such worlds exist in the Milky Way galaxy alone.

Keath also cites the show's use of music to inspire creative thought, and how it «always talks about something I've never heard of, some strange new discovery or scientific problem being solved in a weird way.»

«The way we think about it is that we used to have a very narrow focus on weight, and now weight is one of things we focus on but it's not the only thing,» Gary Foster, Weight Watchers» chief scientific officer, told Time magazine in late 2015.

While vilified by part of the scientific community, they are nonetheless financed in part by a man who made billions from his Internet company and is now looking for Earth - friendly ways to invest his wealth.

ON EXPERIMENTATION In a lot of ways building a company is like following the scientific method.

Yet in 2003, the group's executives still wanted to find ways to improve on the division's success, so Edward Northup, president of Boston Scientific International, decided to engage his leadership team in a capabilities audit.

Ever since we posted our view on emergency funds, we have been thinking about a succinct, straightforward but also scientific way to debunk that bad, bad, bad advice that investors should hold large amounts of cash in a money market account.

A more scientific way to respond to this question is to look at historical returns and see what blends of U.S. and international stocks result in the lowest historical risk.

Despite claims to the contrary, religion has consistently stood in the way of scientific & medical progress.

Older scientists contribute to the propagation of scientific fields in ways that go beyond educating and mentoring a new generation.

This sort of work is difficult and beautiful in its own way, but it is not at all self - evident in the manner of a falling apple or an elliptical planetary orbit, and it is very sensitive to the same sorts of accidental contamination, deliberate fraud, and unconscious bias as the medical and social - scientific studies we have discussed.

We understand now that this is a natural phenomenon resulting form the way in which fungal spores distribute themselves, but prior to scientific understanding of fungal reproduction, various cultures concocted supernatural explanations.

Even if proven, knowledge of our origins is in no way relevant to modern scientific pursuits.

Perhaps it is now time to recognize that the third world - changing scientific achievement of the last century is not the unmitigated good that much of Western culture claims it is — and that treating the sexual revolution as a unambiguous, indeed undeniable, boon to humanity can lead to a lot of personal unhappiness, homicidal ghouls like Kermit Gosnell, and the deployment of coercive state power in ways that threaten civil society and democracy.

Without pretending to be scientific about it, the world may be imagined to be a vast collection of existences — things and substances of various compositions and kinds — each of which is what it is, and moves, changes, grows, or decays as it does by reason of its relation to other things: things existing in various ways by, and in some cases, at the expense of, or on, other things.

Here you will find the ways in which the left embraced eugenics, «scientific» racialism, the campaign to ban Christianity from the public square, and utopian politics, all resulting in the great human catastrophes of the century past.

So before religion goes by the way of the horse - and - buggy, someone with a brain in the evangelical church leadership needs to realize how ridiculous they sound every time they spew scientific nonsense.

A traditional way to maintain integrity in science is through peer review, the anonymous examination of a scientific paper by qualified, competing scientists before publication.

In the seemingly straightforward «scientific principle» of testing to verify information before it can be believed, lie a formula that leads to the way of death.

The concept of the supernatural is culturally derived from an innate cognitive schema...» The scientific evidence for his position comes from an analysis of studies done on children that show that their innate way of viewing the world is in terms of «design, function and purpose» - making them, in effect, «intuitive theists.»

Rabbi Neuberger asserted that «it's really important that one accepts that... new scientific research has taught us... that the human embryo is not as unique as we thought before... We do have to think differently about the «unique quality of human embryos» in the way that Peter Saunders is saying... The miracle of creation... may have to be explained somewhat differently... Our human brains are given to us by God... to better the life of other human beings... and if this technology can do it..., and I don't believe that anybody is going to research beyond fourteen days, then so be it, lets do it.»

Although the paper employs some materials from contemporary economics, they are used to buttress its theological contentions in the way that creationists use bits of science to support their claim that the Bible is a scientific textbook.

Since then, this conception of metaphysics has given way to one of metaphysics as the study of most basic or general presuppositions, and of the metaphysical argument as hypothetical in the manner of a scientific theory, but on a level of higher generality.

«In light of [the] would - be scientific intellectual model, matters of faith appear as archaic... This way of thinking... has changed man's basic orientation towards reality.

So, whether we are walking through natural scenery, visiting an art gallery, encountering a special personality, participating in a liturgical ceremony, uncovering secrets of the scientific or mathematical world, in all these ways we scarcely realise what has happened until it is there before us and suddenly evident to us with its compelling quality of perfection.

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.

In fact, if he is to be true to the scientific method, he can not bring God into the picture even if he wanted to, for by the methods of science, there is no way of verifying whether God is present or not.

As I have stated throughout this book, it is neither possible nor desirable to respond to the question of nature's purpose in a purely scientific way.

atoms... all brought about by the scientific method have evidence as to their the reason why things are the way they are... NOT god... in EVERY instance god has proven not to be what it is... the reason a volcano explodes is not because the wrath of god is upon a community... we understand the process behind the event but we didn't always KNOW that.

Its doctrine of creation and faith in the dependability of God contributed to the rise of modern science, as Whitehead has persuasively shown.9 Yet the scientific method had to make its way against a heavy weight of ecclesiastical opposition.

This understanding of the limited scope of scientific method had been generally accepted since Kant's Critique of Pure Reason (1781); but in nineteenth - century evolutionary parlance it took on the specific meaning that «all beginnings and endings are lost in mystery,» a phrase that became commonplace in the sciences and social sciences as a way of dismissing or circumventing probing questions that sought to assess the larger implications or consequences of scientific analysis.

Still, no matter how close the approximations, the entire line of argument is a lapse into literalism and its assumption that this account is in some way comparable to a scientific, historical one.

As Montgomery puts it: «Science and theology form and test their respective theories in the same way; the scientific theorizer attempts objectively to formulate conceptual Gestalts (hypotheses, theories, laws) capable of rendering Nature intelligible, and the theologian endeavors to provide conceptual Gestalts (doctrines, dogmas) which will «fit the facts» and properly reflect the norms of Holy Scripture.»

Unless you establish that you know something specific in the Quran that contradicts your LOGIC and way of thinking (challenges established truths and scientific evidences), I am puzzled why you are not Muslims yet?

By the way, for those of you impressed with her reference too Fred Hoyle, today, about 93 % of the American Academy of Scientists (THE most prestigious scientific body in the USA) reject the idea of the Judeo - Christian god.

What I like the most it does not get in the way of the scientific method or the exploration being done by NASA, CERN, Hubble or Kepler telescopes.

People have irrationally questioned her scientific credentials because of an opinion she has that in no way opposes scientific data.

Haha, is it legal to reduce the idiocracry of the blind followers of the «Scientific Consensus» in the same way that they do to the blind followers of tyrant gods?

The mentality that Rauschenbusch deployed to seduce his readers — the turn away from troubling debates about doctrine, the shift from personal salvation to social reform, and the reassurance that progressive disdain for traditional religion was in fact a sign of a more authentic and scientific faith — provided a way to remain Christian while setting aside whatever seems incompatible with modern life.

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.

While that is great, disbelief in this scientific idea does not render you into an incapable member of society, or bar you from being able to raise children the way that you want.

As a christian and one who has lived in the world of science all my working life the answer is that God was the orgin of life that started in a way that is still largly unknown to both the religious and scientific communities.

At many points the influence of John Dewey and other pragmatists will be evident, particularly their belief in democracy as a comprehensive way of life, their confidence in the wide relevance of the scientific spirit and methods, and their commitment to education as a moral enterprise.

«Your world becomes fantastically complicated if you don't believe in evolution...» A better way of saying this is that your world become fantastically complicated (and a bit difficult) if you don't follow in lockstep with the educational and scientific «elite» who have decided that they alone are qualified to define truth.

Creationism and so - called «Intelligent Design» are not in any way scientific theories, and thus when they are presented as such, deserve every bit of the criticism they receive.

In particular, the denial that epistemology is wholly prior to ontology; the denial that we can have an absolutely certain starting point; the idea that those elements of experience thought by most people to be primitive givens are in fact physiologically, personally, and socially constructed; the idea that all of our descriptions of our observations involve culturally conditioned interpretations; the idea that our interpretations, and the focus of our conscious attention, are conditioned by our purposes; the idea that the so - called scientific method does not guarantee neutral, purely objective, truths; and the idea that most of our ideas do not correspond to things beyond ourselves in any simple, straightforward way (for example, red as we see it does not exist in the «red brick» itselfIn particular, the denial that epistemology is wholly prior to ontology; the denial that we can have an absolutely certain starting point; the idea that those elements of experience thought by most people to be primitive givens are in fact physiologically, personally, and socially constructed; the idea that all of our descriptions of our observations involve culturally conditioned interpretations; the idea that our interpretations, and the focus of our conscious attention, are conditioned by our purposes; the idea that the so - called scientific method does not guarantee neutral, purely objective, truths; and the idea that most of our ideas do not correspond to things beyond ourselves in any simple, straightforward way (for example, red as we see it does not exist in the «red brick» itselfin fact physiologically, personally, and socially constructed; the idea that all of our descriptions of our observations involve culturally conditioned interpretations; the idea that our interpretations, and the focus of our conscious attention, are conditioned by our purposes; the idea that the so - called scientific method does not guarantee neutral, purely objective, truths; and the idea that most of our ideas do not correspond to things beyond ourselves in any simple, straightforward way (for example, red as we see it does not exist in the «red brick» itselfin any simple, straightforward way (for example, red as we see it does not exist in the «red brick» itselfin the «red brick» itself).