Sentences with phrase «of view of both science»

The cosmos itself is historical, from the point of view of both science and Christian faith.

Whitehead is not asserting an epistemological solipsism here, but is stating that the question of the community of nature to all, being metaphysical, is not one that has to be answered from the point of view of science.3 Moreover, it remains to be seen whether or not Whitehead's position, as it unfolds in the Enquiry, will remain uninvolved in the «difficult metaphysical question.»

«From the point of view of science, technology and economics, the literature and modeling on energy and climate systems shows that it's feasible to limit warming to below 1.5 degree by 2100,» said Bill Hare, the physicist who is founder and CEO of Climate Analytics.

It failed from the point of view of science, which was misrepresented and whose further development was disturbed.

From the point of view of science, the two things that stand out and which I have not seen expressed so clearly are the problems with Schneider's Double Ehtical Bind, and to my view what the climategate - emails really revealed: the existence of an «old boys» network of high level climate scientists.

From the point of view of science, we need better easily accessible analysis of the paleo data than we have now available.

Not exact matches

So we decided to spend some time speaking with Roberts, to get his views on the current state of life sciences investing and to learn what he thinks may set him apart from the rest of the health care VC crowd.

Viewed as a distraction for the flaky or a self - indulgent form of procrastination by many, even science has ganged up on daydreaming, with previous research showing aimless mind wandering tends to make you unhappy.

The science behind one of TED's most - viewed talks is being called into question by someone whose skepticism carries huge weight.

«It's part travelogue, part hard data, and part sociology of science, resulting in a deep and multifaceted view of the state of the world.

Different administrators have come to different conclusions about how best to apply the law in view of the science, and many of their decisions have been challenged in court, sometimes successfully, for either going too far or not far enough.

Looking at the healthcare debate, and the broader activities of the Trump administration, through a systems science lens helps us take perhaps a more dispassionate view — to focus less on trying to predict where each moment will lead, and more on observing the interaction of factors that will, ultimately, determine outcomes.

A recent study conducted by the Department of Behavioral Science at Utah Valley University found that Facebook makes us view our lives negatively.

Now the basic science part of it, I actually have two points of view.

«I saw firsthand the power broadcasters have to shape how others viewed stresses and challenges,» says Gielan, author of the new bestseller, Broadcasting Happiness: The Science of Igniting and Sustaining Positive Change.

The goal is to provide users with a view into how they project themselves online based on natural language processing, data science, and a bit of Myers - Briggs personality scoring.

«I am one of the only students with a science background who also has significant startup experience, so I think that brings a very different view to our case discussions when we talk about making decisions using very little data,» she said.

But the access and the transparency are fully out of balance with the science based dissenting view.

Mr. Ham is something of an extremist in his views, and advocating a form of creationism that, if true, would seem to mean that God has deceived us by creating a universe that doesn't align with at least some of the causal relationships science has identified.

If you are not a Christian and you believe what science tells us and you believe there could be a God, does viewing some of it as parable help?

You get a lot of Christians on here that claiming scientists respect their views or even that Christianity and science are compatible.

Does anyone else see the humor in the creationists debating their point of view over the Internet (invented by science), filmed on cameras (based on science) in a hall lit by electricity (harnessed by science).

However, the common intelligent design promoter actually believes that it was a supernatural force or godlike being outside of natural processes that did the «designing» and that view is not compatible with science.

For me I see evolution the same as you see God not enough proof to say I believe it and see God as how all things started, in my view evolution of man can be true just that it has not been proven where God I can see because there is no other logical explanation for how the matter in the universe came to be from nothing, a higher power for now can be the only possible answer if science was to prove the creation of the universe in some other way I would not deny that truth.

Jewish people are the least likely to believe science conflicts with their beliefs, with a mere 17 percent of Jews seeing any tension between science and their views.

- 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.

It's an empty and ugly view of the world that really doesn't even stand up to the science so heralded by those who decry religion.

Science totally encapsulated in an Evolutionary point of view is ridiculous.

It may be a popular view since the Endarkenment that science is the sole determiner of truth, but that's just not so.

They find it offensive that people like you discuss their endeavors, which required years of education, research and effort, in the same breath as the wild and baseless allegations of religion (at least as science views it).

One of the glories of science is that people come together to do it who have all sorts of religious beliefs, philosophical views, cultural backgrounds, and political opinions.

The conclusion just reached suggests that supposedly value - free political science has had value commitments in spite of itself, at least to the extent that it affirms happiness to be a private matter.5 In addition, I am persuaded that political science explicitly based upon a preferential view of self - interest always implicitly invokes an objective criterion of happiness.

Because it appropriated the preferential view of self - interest, «value - free» political science has become a servant of the same master.

You made assertions about what I think and that my view of science is a delusion.

Just because I think your personal view of what you call science is a benevolent delusion, does not mean that solipsism reigns.

Faith as addressing issues beyond the scope of rationality: In this view, faith is seen as covering issues that science and rationality are inherently incapable of addressing, but that are nevertheless entirely real.

Because it has appropriated the preferential view of happiness, much academic political science has become a territory within liberalism's sphere of influence.

The Folly of Scientism Austin L Hughes, a professor of biology at the University of South Carolina, has written a perceptive, thought - provoking article in The New Atlantis magazine, concurring with my own view of current philosophical trends in popular scientific presentations.2 One of these trends is «scientism», the view that science is the only source of truth and reality.

De Chardin made two important points: firstly that the science of man seems to come out decisively in favour of monophyletism and secondly that any decision for or against monogenism must ultimately elude science in view of the depth of time that has elapsed since the creation of man.

(4) Descriptions of evolutionary mechanisms also share in the mechanistic and materialistic biases of science — which easily becomes translated into materialism as a world view.

According to Hans Jonas, the birth of modern science was bound up with the advent of a radical new view of reality, a «technological ontology» that conflates nature and artifice, knowing and making, truth and utility.

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.

Vannevar Bush, for example, a former president of MIT and director of the government's Office of Scientific Research and Development during the war, published an influential article in the Atlantic Monthly which «offered an amazingly prescient view of the effect of science on the world economy and of computers in daily life.»

If you think that this is just a clergyman's view, listen to Dr. Prichett when he was president of Massachusetts Institute of Technology: «Science is grounded in faith, just as is religion.»

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.

Those who believe that miracles are refuted by modern science may view them symbolically rather than literally, saying, for example, that the stilling of the storm (Mark 4:35 - 41) shows that God is with the believer in the storms of life.

Or we'd fight about what type of science we should be following in our atheistic views.

We get to read religious views from people who know nothing of religion and scientific views from people who have no clue about science.

Our view has been that both science and religion are rooted in experience but that each is based in a different region of the perceptive process.

I have discovered that most atheists claim sole authority over the realms of science and reason and promote a view that belief in a creator is incompatible with them.