Sentences with phrase «modern science works»

The development of a new philosophy of science which radically questions the earlier mechanical - materialistic world - view within which classical modern science worked and also the search for a new philosophy of technological development and struggle for social justice which takes seriously the concern for ecological justice, are very much part of the contemporary situation.

Not exact matches

LeadGenius uses a unique combination of the most modern data science technology and skilled human researchers working in concert with each other on client - defined B2B marketing and sales data projects.

If they put in only what they could imagine or perceive with just their senses then the Bible doesn't impress as a source of information that trumps modern science, with our advanced instruments, computers and dedicated professionals all investigating how the universe actually works.

It's true that modern science has been wrong before and will be wrong again, but that is how science works.

And yet the flight to physics rather gives the game away, since measured any way you like — volume of papers, number of working researchers, total amount of funding — deductive, theory - building physics in the mold of Newton and Lagrange, Maxwell and Einstein, is a tiny fraction of modern science as a whole.

But go ahead and keep using the advances of modern science and still cling to your fairy tales, I am sure it works for you.

Second, it is critical of the worldview that developed with modern science and which is still extensively influential in the actual work of most scientists.

The editorial advocated a re-evaluation of Thomas» thought in the light of the discoveries of modern science and suggested that in such a work of re-evaluation and realignment Holloway's contribution was eminently worthy ofconsideration.

Firstly the historical development of modern science, secondly the work of the scientists...

In Science and the Modern World, metaphysics was to complete its work and thereby provide a first step in the knowledge of God to which additions could be made from religious experience.

It is to be hoped that as the centre develops in its work, so it will broaden its outlook so that the natural sciences, the single most influential strand of philosophical thought in modern times, is not left out of the conversation.

He also possessed the works of most major post-scholastic philosophers - Descartes, Kant, Hegel, Marx, Bergson, Sartre et al - and modern philosophers of science like Heisenberg.

Furthermore, most of the founders of modern science explained their reasons for engaging in scientific work in Christian terms.

In Science and the Modern World, Whitehead offered a brief sketch of his project for revising American educational theory and practice, but he never completed the projected work and left its applications to later scholars.

A good working definition of modern science might be the study of those things in nature that are repeatable and only those things that are repeatable.

Whitehead realized by the time he wrote the later parts of Science and the Modern Work)(1925) that modern science has no use for matter in the traditionalScience and the Modern Work)(1925) that modern science has no use for matter in the traditional Modern Work)(1925) that modern science has no use for matter in the traditional modern science has no use for matter in the traditionalscience has no use for matter in the traditional sense.

In particular Whitehead's own works Process and Reality, Science and the Modern World, Adventures of Ideas, Religion in the Making and Modes of Thought constitute the dominant background of the line of thought developed in this book.

So I'm working with Marc Guerra on Descartes, Locke, and Darwin and the modern science of virtue, and the result will be many annoying thought experiments such as this one....

We have also suggested interpretations that are consistent with our modern common sense, with our understanding of how the world works and with our understanding of the physical sciences — interpretations that are also consistent with our faith.

In the interesting and stimulating book, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, the authors John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler compare passages from two of Whitehead's works — The Concept of Nature and Science and the Modern World — and declare them to be mutually incompatible (ANC 216).

People seem to conveniently forget that most modern science exists as a continuation of the work done by men and women who believed in a creator God.

The fact that modern science is nonetheless typically accused by Aristotelian / Thomistic metaphysicians of neglecting «formal cause» shows that they are working with adifferent notion of form than are contemporary physicists and mathematicians.

Despite all of this, perhaps his greatest and most distinctive contribution will turn out to be his critical reconstruction of the development of Whitehead's thought based especially on his work on the texts of Science and the Modern World and Process and Reality.

Response to his philosophy by Christian theologians followed soon upon the publication of his early philosophical works, Science and the Modern World in 1925 and Religion in the Making in 1926.

The most this period could have done was to buy time for a fuller and better synthesis to be worked out between Catholic theology, and what is either well proven, or at least intrinsically probable in the philosophy of modern science, and the culture built upon it.

But he never asks what social, economic, political and ideological forces were at work in the creation of the modern scientific world view, any more than he looks at the role of those forces in the eighteenth century celebration of it, the romantic reaction against it, or the nineteenth and twentieth century codification of positive science.

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.

I'm just amazed at all the atheists here who act like the rest of us who believe have never read a modern book, don't believe in Science, and all work on a dairy farm without electricity.

At the time Thornton had closely read The Concept of Nature (1920) and Principles of Natural Knowledge (2d edition, 1925), tended to interpret Science and the Modern World (1925) in line with these earlier works, and was acquainted with Religion in the Making (1926) though somewhat unsure what to make of its doctrine of God.2 He took comfort in Whitehead's remark concerning the immortality of the soul, and evidently wanted to apply it to all theological issues: «There is no reason why such a question should not be decided on more special evidence, religious or otherwise, provided that it is trustworthy.

Whitehead's detailed work can lead to overcoming the basic problems of modern science.

Nikki Six from Motley crew came back from the dead also after a drug induced death / coma — The jesus thing is very easily explainable by modern science and to simple minds back then it was and could only be the work of a god.

It may be called modernism, but surely one can live in the modern world, accepting its science and engaging in its work, without falling into idolatry of the modern.

Mr. Nye seems to have conveniently forgotten that most modern science exists because of the thinking and hard work of creationists throughout history.

Its modern development in the light of science is largely the work of Alfred North Whitehead and those process philosophers and theologians who have taken their lead from him.

His Holiness has a keen interest in modern science and has always been fascinated by the working of machines and gadgets.

Modern science seeks to construct a coherent understanding of how nature works, «without recourse to the miraculous or to ultimate reasons.»

This «stronger» view of creativity is completely in line with Whitehead's earlier work, such as Science and the Modern World, where creativity is conceived as the substantial activity, which was «an activity of individuation.»

By this Harper means not merely the spirit of critical inquiry generally but specifically «modern psychology» (which he says «is as yet largely unknown» in theological schools), and even actual laboratory work in the physical sciences.

Like I was saying to Magic up above there is a common need in both to force sense from an old story into something that works in the modern world, usually at some conflict with real science.

This is the line taken by what in North America today is frequently described as «process thought»; its greatest exponent was the late Professor Alfred North Whitehead in his works Process and Reality (his book has been re-arranged, and provided with excellent explanatory notes by D. W. Sherburne, under the title of Key to Whitehead's Process and Reality), Science and the Modern World, Modes of Thought, Adventures of Ideas, Religion in the Making, and Symbolism, all of them written after Whitehead had joined the faculty of Harvard University in the United States in the 1920's.

If you refuse to accept the principles that have led science to a well supported estimate for the age of the Earth, you are also rejecting the principles necessary for our modern economy to work.

The philosopher does not work in a void; even a cursory glance at the history of philosophy would point out that the masters of modern philosophy have been men who had assimilated all the material of the sciences of their time.

John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler claim contradictions in two of Whitehead's works — The Concept of Nature and Science and the Modern World.

A prolific writer on the theological, philosophical and ethical issues related to the faith - science debate, Jaki's work can safely be summarised as the intentional repudiation of the modern, secularist agenda which seeks to place science and Christian faith in radical, philosophical and historical opposition.

He also asserts that «modern science is an invention of medieval Christianity, and the greatest breakthroughs in scientific reason have largely been the work of Christians.»

In order to understand how Whitehead developed the concept of God, one may begin by comparing his earlier works such as The Principles of Natural Knowledge (1919) and The Concept of Nature (1920) with his later works such as Science and the Modern World (1925), Religion in the Making (1926) and Process and Reality (1929).

These considerations point, of course, to the relevance of work in the social sciences that has sought to problematize the modern concept of individuality.

We use automobiles in this work; we use modern medical science in this work; we can also use communication technologies in this same work.

I now live with my wife and three kids down in Texas where I work to defend modern, science - based farming in America, including true organic farming.

I confess that I have become somewhat blasé about the range of exciting — I think revolutionary is probably more accurate — technologies that we are rolling out today: our work in genomics and its translation into varieties that are reaching poor farmers today; our innovative integration of long — term and multilocation trials with crop models and modern IT and communications technology to reach farmers in ways we never even imagined five years ago; our vision to create a C4 rice and see to it that Golden Rice reaches poor and hungry children; maintaining productivity gains in the face of dynamic pests and pathogens; understanding the nature of the rice grain and what makes for good quality; our many efforts to change the way rice is grown to meet the challenges of changing rural economies, changing societies, and a changing climate; and, our extraordinary array of partnerships that has placed us at the forefront of the CGIAR change process through the Global Rice Science Partnership.