Sentences with phrase «of scientific language»

Was the precision and adeptness of scientific language sharpened by wearing it against the obdurate and pointless opposition of Pielke et al, or was it only slowed?

I disagree, although there is always a big difference between the precision of ordinary language and the precision of scientific language.

Michael Joo's non-linear, almost cyclical approach to his practice, together with his combination of scientific language and research, results in work that is a documentation of process.

The supremacy of scientific language in western culture means we do not resource to nature automatically and habitually as our prime and primal teacher.

He finds an understanding of scientific language and the way that science works valuable, especially in offering analogies from a layperson's point of view.

«It's really vital that everyone be on the same page in terms of scientific language about this group,» Bird said.

They approach the teaching of scientific language in the same way they would approach the general teaching of English as a foreign language.

And so this was also the beginning of years of study and research into the nature of scientific language and how it could best be taught, which was to culminate many years later in a PhD plus a book on the subject: Text and Argumentation in English for Science and Technology.

The function of scientific language is the prediction and control of nature; that of religious language is the expression of self - commitment, ethical dedication, and existential life - orientation.

Many philosophers stress these non-cognitive functions; they insist that these tasks are valuable and legitimate but are very different from the tasks of scientific language.

These are all functions very different from any of the functions of scientific language.

It does not replace ordinary language and it is not a higher form of scientific language.

One key trait of successful biomaterials scientists is an ability to span scientific cultures and speak a variety of scientific languages.

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.

What is interesting here is not simply that the everyday language of «a fine day» is determined by a set of new - fangled scientific abstractions, but also the fact that a novel written after the war dares to inhabit the virtual outlook of before.

As a result, much of the language around management and leadership has — or aspires to — a technical, scientific tone.

But I fail to see how the mythical language of the Bible is at odds with scientific theory.

The language of mythology, or, as I myself prefer to say, metaphor, is the language which religion speaks; it can do no other, for religious faith is neither scientific formulae nor philosophical concepts, but a dramatic, poetic, symbolical way of speaking of the deepest realities and our apprehension of them.

Scientific language, although often purporting to be fundamental, is actually descriptive of an already rather late and abstract realm of objects lending themselves to demarcation by the crisp logic of mathematics.

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

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 satisfaction.

«Both their everyday and most of their scientific world and language are shared.

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

The dinosaur belongs properly to the scientific language of the reconstruction of biological history, and the Genesis story be longs to a biblical category of mythic thinking.

But one may still question, I think, whether, prior to the emergence of the modem scientific world - picture and the sharp differentiation of the nonempirical claims of religion and metaphysics from the strictly empirical claims of science and ordinary language, these difficulties could be felt as acutely as most of us feel them today.

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

This is the discovery that the real meaning of all religious language, regardless of its terms and categories, is existential, or, if you will, metaphysical, rather than scientific or historical.

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

Theologians influenced by positivism, whose adherents saw reality as strictly that which can be experienced through the senses and knowledge as that which can be obtained through a narrow definition of the scientific method, and linguistic analysis, which purported that the only proper function of philosophy is the study of the usage of words and sentences, also treated science and religion as separate realms, distinct «language games,» each with its own set of rules.

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.

While the scientific use of language to designate is an important function of words and necessary to some disciplines, to permit words only this function would be sterilizing reductionism.

Wittgenstein's insight is important for the preacher to the extent that it liberates language from the restrictions of the single perspective of the scientific method.

This is true not because the church will necessarily feel itself bound by these terms (we are not to feel bound by any terms: God has not called us to bondage, but to freedom), but because what these terms stand for can not be translated into the language either of ordinary speech or of scientific and philosophical discourse.

It emphasises that science and technology must be «at the service of the human person» (DV 2) and the language is quite strong: «Science without conscience can only lead to man's ruin» (DV 2); and «No biologist or doctor can reasonably claim, by virtue of his scientific competence, to be able to decide on people's rights and destiny» (DV 3).

Despite its demonization as a right wing Christian rejection of modern science if not modernity as a whole, the language of Bush's order manages to acknowledge the serious and profound ethical dilemmas that surround stem cell research and to clearly articulate both the scientific and moral principles that ground its decisions.

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.

«61 This referential function differs from the referential function of ordinary language or of scientific discourse.

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).

And today the linguistic approach would encourage us to treat the language of divine action as an alternative to scientific language, not a competitor with it.

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.»

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.

Scientific language has replaced myth for the understanding of physical phenomena, but it has not replaced poetry and art as the expression of the human spirit.

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).

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.

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.