Sentences with phrase «nature of science as»

We seem, however, to agree on very many points related to the nature of science as well as on what kind of requirements should be made on scientific practices.

As students work through eScience3000's proven 5 - step routine, they read and discuss texts to develop meaningful understandings of disciplinary core ideas; engage in hands - on activities and investigations that reflect today's science and engineering practices; and reflect on crosscutting concepts and the nature of science as they analyze their results and write about their conclusions.

«The science that students engage with should demonstrate the nature of science as it works in the world.

In his preface, Roy Porter claims this dictionary «is designed to spell out and make accessible the multi-dimensional nature of science as thought and activity».

Not exact matches

As molecular biologist Rana Dajani explains in a 2011 Nature editorial, the political and religious environment in most Arab states currently «fails to sustain creativity, curiosity and striking out into the unknown — all of which are essential for science to flourish.»

-- Jim Silye has been appointed by Prime Minister Stephen Harper as chair of the board of the Museum of Science and Nature in Ottawa.

This more general science is traditionally known as the philosophy of nature.

Please remember too that many of us do recognize science as being an instrument for understanding and describing the nature of the material plane, how it grows, changes, evolves etc..

As Albert the Great, medieval philosopher, scientist, and teacher of Thomas Aquinas, remarked: «In the natural sciences we do not investigate how God the Creator operates according to His will and uses miracles to show His power, but rather what may happen in natural things on the ground of the causes inherent in nature» (In I De caelo et mundo, tr.

And while science may not have as yet explained all the unexplained things in our universe, it has to begin to be seen as, at the very least, having explained enough that we can reasonably dismiss most, if not all, beliefs of this nature.

First, as they are forming their beliefs — whatever they may be — students will be aware of the nature of science and its relation to complex ethical and religious issues.

you are either for creationism or for science while ignoring what people such as myself believe that, yes, God created us but through the process of evolution according to the laws of His Nature.

Types of Moral Argumentation Regarding Homosexuality by Pim Pronk Eerdmans, 350 pages, $ 24.99 paper An interesting book not so much for the position it advances (approval of homosexual relations) as for the claim that any position on homosexuality (or anything else) must be reached on the basis of moral reflection independent of nature, science, or theology.

And just as there are certainties we have learned from nature, such as the laws of science, gravity, and thermodynamics, there are also certainties we can learn from Scripture, such as the holiness of God, our own sinfulness, and our need to believe in Jesus for eternal life.

The Bishop rightly alerts the listeners to the obvious self - refuting nature of scientism; he emphasises that truth can surely be found in non-scientific forms such as poetry and literature; and then finally, he offers the building blocks for a philosophical argument that the intelligibility of the universe, and thereby the possibility of any science, in some way demonstrates a thinking mind behind the universe.

Although generally categorized as a novel for young readers, this Newbery award - winner and science fiction classic, grapple with adult - sized questions about the nature of God and the existence of evil.

But before expressing this belief, Fr Holloway makes a general remark about the nature of scientific knowledge which may serve as an introduction to Polanyi's refutation of Scientific Positivism and his proposal that science is Personal Knowledge: «It is most significant that here, as so very often in the discoveries of science, it was not the inductive data which was the real beginning of the breakthrough in knowledge, but a deductive vision glimpsed through scanty data which thrilled and excited the mind... from then on the hunt is up for the clues and the final proof.»

It can be shown, on the contrary, that just as the natural sciences yield a comprehensive view of man, so the picture of human nature provided by the social sciences is that of a three-fold integration of body, mind, and spirit.

If these sciences are to afford valuable insights into human nature, they must be broadened to include philosophical considerations growing out of the critical scrutiny of science and technology as human undertakings.

«I bless you, matter, and you I acclaim: not as the pontiffs of science or the moralizing preachers depict you, debased, disfigured — a mass of brute forces and base appetites — but as you reveal yourself to mc today, in your totality and your true nature.

Thus, the social sciences, like the natural sciences, show that man's nature and nurture in their relational as in their universal aspects, must be conceived with due regard for the inextricable interdependence of physical, mental, and spiritual factors.

Rather it attempts only to point out the logical and cosmological congruity of these unobtrusive formative factors with nature as understood by science.

As a result we tend to carry around ridiculously outworn pictures of nature that resist not only teleological interpretations but even the insights of contemporary science.

To cite just one example, it is difficult to see how this synthesis, relying as it does upon a basically Aristotelian concept of nature or form as a static unchanging reality, can accommodate the discoveries of modern science.

As our review of the CTS «Science and Religion» pamphlet later in this issue shows, we would have a different angle, particularly concerning the nature of the renewed concept of the «form» to which Fr Selman refers.

Just as science must constantly revise its models so as to surmount the deficiencies of its abstract (usually mathematical) models of nature, so also religions are called upon continually to revise their enigmatic representations of cosmic significance in keeping with primary perceptions intuition of an ongoing cosmic adventure.

I would align myself with you against the positions of Dulles and Schonborn (and Gilson) insofar as they say that modern science by its very nature excludes the consideration of formality.

This reduction of the nature of modern scientific methodology is hard to maintain in the light of most contemporary philosophy of science, as Stephen Barr for instance has shown in this magazine.

What this meant was that, as long as the sciences or any related form of inquiry attended to the immediacies of nature or experience, no ultimate question need intrude or be considered.

Let it be said here and now, however, that we need not conclude that the very sciences which are forcing us more and more to abandon as invalid our traditional understanding of the nature and destiny of man, have thereby solved the riddle of life and of the mystery of man.

For example, on the one hand, when St Thomas Aquinas in his great mediaeval theological works treats theology as the «queen of the sciences», yet «the subordination of metaphysics to theology did not necessarily entail an obstruction to the study of nature» (p. 81)-- it «had not resulted in a sterile fusion» (p. 84).

Just as I can't possibly grasp the true nature of the reality of science, I've had to admit that I also can't possibly grasp the true nature of the divine, sacred, God, whatever you want to call it.

«as increasing accomplishments of the sciences deepen our wonder of the complexity of nature, the need for an interdisciplinary approach tied with philosophical reflection leading to a synthesis is more and more perceived.»

In both science and art man seeks beauty and truth so that «the finite consciousness of mankind is appropriating as its own the infinite fecundity of nature.

This we may readily concede, and many neurologists, psychologists, biochemists etc., would willingly agree; but no understanding of man can be any longer satisfactory, which is content to ignore what these sciences have taught us about the nature of man as a psychosomatic organism.

The idea then current was that astronomy is a branch of mathematics devoted to calculating where and when things appear in the sky, whereas it was the job of «philosophy» (as science was then called) to explain the nature and causes of things.

When an autonomous nature and an infinite space dawned in the Renaissance, the world was no longer manifest as the creation, and with the subsequent triumph of modern science, contingency in the medieval sense has disappeared from view.

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.»

As a science - fiction reader I am always amazed that some people will say that a book brings into focus human nature and future trends and a possible scheme for the salvation of the human race from our own self - destructiveness.

By calling his own brand of naturalism «integral,» Artigas wishes to convey the notion that nature as understood by the natural sciences points beyond itself to a larger reality to which the natural owes its existence, a reality to which the methods of the natural sciences do not of themselves, however, give direct access.

2 The other principal factors, as far as I can judge, are Zeno's arguments (PR 68-70/106 -08), and the tendency in modern science to view nature in terms of quanta (SMW, Ch.

# 1 & 3 are about as simple as you can get, certainly understandable by anyone who recognizes God as lord and creator, and even if you are an atheist, these are still just as simple, supported by science, and any law of nature you care to embrace.

Whereas modern science and technology offer immense new potentialities in relation to nature such as use of solar energy, and improvements in medical science, yet overall nature is being badly exploited by the present pattern of development.

... In his excellent article, Paul H. Liben defines science as the study of nature.

Science was a calling to discover God's plan in the arrangement of nature, or, as Stark puts it, to «know God's handiwork.»

The new naturalism and science of the 17th century initially had the effect of restoring the vision of nature as good, orderly and benign — the arena of the manifestation of God's divine reason, rather than of the devil's malice.

Its function is thus of a methodological or logical nature, and therewith it embraces theology as for instance it does natural science.

Your reference to a «hypothesis» reflects a miscomprehension of the relative nature of «hypothesis» and «theory» as used in science.

Hence Muslim theology is also called the science of unification (of God), because its object is to determine the nature of God and His attributes, and to explain the relation between Him and His creation, all of which follow as corollaries from a definite concept of Allah as the Absolute One.

Rather than these unity - level «rational structures» being intrinsic to what «modern scientific reason» discovers a posteriori, the Pope argues that science's «methodology -LSB-... is] based» upon «acceptance of] the rational structures of matter and the correspondence between our spirit and the prevailing rational structures of nature as a given» (our emphasis).