Sentences with phrase «much science from»

You can learn about as much science from the quran as you can physics from «Horton Hears a Hoo»... now your sure that nest can fit an elephant?

Not exact matches

As much as recent efforts to encourage women in STEM education and STEM jobs have helped move the needle a bit, the culture of science has often made life for women scientists harder than it already is — excluding them from clubby publishing and peer review networks and sometimes outright snubbing their achievements.

From pollution to injuries, the pull - tab from aluminum beverage cans were hazardous, enough so that it caused much discussion in the science community, beverage industry and meFrom pollution to injuries, the pull - tab from aluminum beverage cans were hazardous, enough so that it caused much discussion in the science community, beverage industry and mefrom aluminum beverage cans were hazardous, enough so that it caused much discussion in the science community, beverage industry and media.

While the science on the subject is still a bit muddled, it's clear from both research and personal experience that relying on self - control to force yourself to meet your goals is pretty much doomed to long - term failure.

Gross says focusing on video games was as much about the science of tracking and collecting information about patients» vision, as it is about the psychology in having a testing format that appeals to a wide range of ages and cognitive abilities — from children through elderly — regardless of reading or language skills.

From cancer research and materials science to psychological profiles, these new data sets will even smaller players to innovate and compete with much larger organizations.

This is very much the topic of science fiction past, but like any other technology, it will start off simple and evolve from there.

From implantable devices that provide a steady trickle of medicine over months, to patches that reduce the need for injections, to ingestible sensors that track how people take their meds, the bold new science of drug delivery may be doing as much to improve medicine as the medicines themselves in some cases.

We know from various studies done in the social sciences in the past forty years, as well as from fifteen plus years of my being involved with personas, the trio of users / buyers / customers makes decisions based on much more than just content or information.

- But the difference is, Science eventually comes to its senses in the face of TESTABLE EVIDENCE and changes it's views; the thought of changing away from religious dogma is abhorrant to almost all faiths, and change in practices often take much time.

In my opinion, being agnostic on many things, I believe we have much more to learn in Dawkins» area of expertise before we can really get to an educated answer to the issue, but that is just a gut feeling, but with serious consideration to what we don't actually know on the issue from these fields of science.

What has transformed climate science from a normal intellectual discipline to a matter of so much controversy?

But since most philosophers and theologians have cut themselves off from science, few outside the process group pay much attention.

I often hear from «Mainliners» who essentially say, «Hey, we're much more open to science, social justice, political diversity, and LGBT people.

As Whitehead accurately points out, much of the conflict between science and religion stems from the reluctance, especially on the part of religion, to embrace adventure.

His reading revealed that the field to which these works are assigned — variously designated «practical theology,» «church studies,» or «ministry studies» — is very diverse and imports much from the human sciences.

Writing in Science (January 27, 1984), R. Jeffrey Smith shows that the deployment of the cruise missile, for example, resulted not as much from the Soviets» previous deployment of the SS20 as it did from commercial and political forces in the West.

There are long passages in the last chapter of Science and the Modern World, for instance, which could easily have served as the source of some of Leopold's ideas, and which suggest that Leopold's notion of community could be derived from Whitehead's theory of organism without much difficulty.

There is nothing in the theory of evolution, nor in astronomy, or in geology, nor in paleontology, or any other branch of the sciences which contradicts Christianity, or any other type of theism (except Mormonism — we know scientifically that the Indian peoples of the Americas are not descended from the Jews — which is a key point of belief for them, much more central than there having been a literal Garden of Eden is for classical Christianity or Judaism).

But, it is likely that as you get well versed in the natural sciences, it becomes much easier to stray away from creationism.

In making the full Aristotelian move I am really drawing much of my insight from Science and the Modern World, a book four years earlier than the full - blown theory of Process and Reality.

A general review of the endnotes from Gunter's paper reveals a fair number of sources who will corroborate the claim that Bergson's scientific views are nor only not outdated, but go very» much to the heart of current scientific methods and insights, but particularly, see A. C. Papanicolaou and Pete A. N. Gunter, eds., Bergson in Modern Thought Towards a Unified Science (New York: Harwood Academic Publishers, 1987), and for important background on how Bergson came to be seen as dated when he was not, see also, Milic Capek, Bergson and Modern Physics, (cited above) and The Philosophical Impact of Contemporary Physics (Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand, 1961), and the volume edited by Gunter, Bergson and the Evolution of Physics (cited above).

But humankind suffers from a sickness more profound than medical science can even describe, much less cure.

We know from modern science that the events of our lives occur within the story of a universe that is much vaster than our earthly history.

A view held by many contemporary metaphysicians is that the problem of induction, so much discussed by philosophers of science, arises only because of mistaken metaphysical views; in particular views (deriving from Hume) about the nature of the causal relation and / or about the internal relations among different entities.1 Contrary to this view, I will try...

Much of McHenry's argument takes the form of showing that the doctrine of internal relations or prehensions, so important to Science and the Modern World, does not make sense apart from experience.

Against new knowledge, as men gain new wisdoms from science and new power in the universe, there is no Lordship of Christ over all the ages, unless His voice can speak with as much authority affirming and defining now, and a thousand years from now, as it did in the market towns of Galilee, in the Temple at Jerusalem, and along the shore of the Sea of Tiberias.

It fits in so deeply with the Faith of the Church, takes in the beautiful teaching of the Fathers from early Christianity, and also tries to makes sense of modern science, in much the same way as St Thomas Aquinas attempted to do in the thirteenth century.

So much is this true that the total separation of faith and religion from life and culture became a cardinal principle of a new outlook, now called The Philosophy of Science, the doctrine of which is that nothing is valid in society, in community law, or in educational principle, unless it belongs to the experimental order and can be proven by the senses.

Etienne Gilson in his influential 1971 book From Aristotle to Descartes and Back Again favoured claiming that the object of science is material and efficient causation while normal physical observation is much broader and gets at formal and final causation.

Science was not able to tell me why my son had to suffer so much, but it was also science that brought him relief from the seizures along with solid data collection by way of mediScience was not able to tell me why my son had to suffer so much, but it was also science that brought him relief from the seizures along with solid data collection by way of mediscience that brought him relief from the seizures along with solid data collection by way of medication.

The three Religion and Medicine authors rejected Christian Science and other New Thought ideas and quoted much from the Bible to support the idea that God is and has the «Power» to heal man and keep him healthy.

If you hate science so much, I suggest you get rid of your computer, or whatever device you are posting from.

Hitherto, in the eyes of a Science too much accustomed to reconstruct the world on one spatial axis extending in a line from the infinitely small to the infinitely great, the larger molecules of organic chemistry, and still more the living cellular composites, have existed without any defined position, like wandering stars, in the general scheme of cosmic elements.

Evolutionary biology is the foundation of modern biology and has as much chance of being removed from legitimate science as Newtonian mechanics from Physics.

Those accustomed to reading analysis of faith - based reforms by sociologists, theologians and social workers can learn much from the political science perspective.

It is time for peace between both sides, between science and faith, there is far too much vitriol from two sides who are are actually care about the truth, and approach it in a different manner.

Despite the «science is settled» and «consensus» claims of the global - warming alarmists, the fear of catastrophic consequences from rising temperatures has been driven not so much by good science as by computer models and adroit publicity fed to a compliant media.

Today, the movement has realized that science is much more likely to reach an audience which is increasingly looking for demonstrable evidence from which to base their position on social issues.

You said: «Until «science» can answer questions like WHERE did the universe come from and how matter created itself, I won't give much authority to the «proving of» evolution and science and its claims.»

On the basis of experience from a variety of sources a religious person and the theologian formulate a theory which, like any theory dealing with complex issues in science, is a matter of weighing one experience against another, together with much subjective judgment.

Science is wonderful and this field is very interesting, but if we're going to get any presently useful information from the specific field of geological dating, it's much, much more recent stuff like climate evidence.

The Universe, known and unknown, is possibly not the most used definition of God, at least in the western world... but it is the Pantheistic version that jives so much more with science and is not a misappropriation of the smaller definitions of God, merely an unfamiliar definition to those with less knowledge of various more advanced religious and philosophic thought, within and outside those religions... The idea of Pantheism also thoughtfully considers why there is, rather than ridiculing, such a wide range of philosophical and ritual beliefs from a scientific perspective... without having to classify large groups of people, as senseless idiots from one end or destined for hell from the other.

how a man rose from the dead and was not a zombie... how supposed humans started from a brother and sister committing incest but no birth defects occurred... the more educated the masses get in science the more u know these things are possible no matter how much «FAITH» u have or how many times u rewrite the good books

Until «science» can answer questions like WHERE did the universe come from and how matter created itself, I won't give much authority to the «proving of» evolution and science and its claims.

If I were choosing recent books in this area which most deserve to be read outside the country, I would start with Oliver O'Donovan's political theology in The Desire of the Nations; John Milbank's critique of the social sciences in Theology and Social Theory; Timothy Gorringe's provocative political reading of Karl Barth in Karl Barth: Against Hegemony; Peter Sedgwick's The Market Economy and Christian Ethics; Michael Banner's Christian Ethics and Contemporary Moral Problems; Duncan Forrester's Christian Justice and Public Policy; and Timothy Jenkins's Religion in Everyday Life: An Ethnographic Approach, which argues with a dense interweaving of theory and empirical study for a social anthropological approach to English religion which has learned much from theology.

Yet it must be granted that Whitehead's general orientation has been considerably and consciously shaped in terms of Christian insights, even though much of his general thought has been constructed from the data of science.

I picture all of science uncovering much forensic evidence and only able to say this all came from nothing.

Much of the prestige of the Enlightenment came from its close association with modern science.

Many attempts have been made to show the symbolic character of much of the human enterprise, from rite and myth to art and science.