Sentences with phrase «philosophy of science which»

It overturns all this obfuscatory BS about «post-normal» science, those models are the best we have, all measurements involve theory, the philosophy of science which has more variations even than the climate models, and all the other crap pro-CAGW» ers throw in the road to truth.

However we would demur on the philosophy of science which the Cardinal, with some justification, draws out of the Pope's Regensburg lecture.

This is the very dynamic within modern philosophy of science which was started by Descartes in response to Bacon's philosophy of science and which we think has had very deleterious effects upon Christian culture in our technological age.

No doubt Pearson was correct in feeling some danger to science in accepting a philosophy of science which recognizes choice as real, but I do not think that this is serious if it is also recognized that determinism is necessarily the external aspect of the chains of choices at all levels.

Davies is right that the strength of conviction behind these affirmations goes beyond the fashionable, Popperian, philosophy of science which deals in the currency of the purely provisional and fails explicitly to found its expectations.

Humans Discover Before Presuming From the standpoint of the proposal of a new synthesis which is core to the aims and ideals of the Faith movement, we wish to draw attention to one problem in the philosophy of science which we believe needs to be clarified if the key Papal appeal concerning the «broadening of reason» is to come to fruition.

There was and is a need for a philosophy of science which, as Edward Holloway writes, was more «existential in emphasis» than essential, whilst being truly realist concerning formal universality (cf. Perspectives in Philosophy, Vol III, Noumenon and Phenomenon: Rethinking the Greeks in the Age of Science, Faith - Keyway Trust).

I am not speaking to «attacking all views of God» I was actually talking about your assumed philosophy of science which you think doesn't provide enough evidence for God.

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.

Fr Holloway writes: «What they need is not an inventory of unrelated items of the physical sciences, but a philosophy of science which is also their philosophy of being».

Not exact matches

Science, or «natural» philosophy (remember that we still handout advanced degrees in the sciences as a PhD, or Doctor of Philosophy) provides material answers to the cosmological questions, but does not answer questions regarding purpose or death, which many (including apparently Ms. Libresco) find philosophy (remember that we still handout advanced degrees in the sciences as a PhD, or Doctor of Philosophy) provides material answers to the cosmological questions, but does not answer questions regarding purpose or death, which many (including apparently Ms. Libresco) find Philosophy) provides material answers to the cosmological questions, but does not answer questions regarding purpose or death, which many (including apparently Ms. Libresco) find difficult.

Don't allow religious philosophy to intrude into biology classrooms and texts, they say, for that is to soil the sacred precincts of science, which must be reserved for hypotheses that can be rigorously tested and confronted with data.

This was not true for me, and it is not true for many of the young adults who leave college with questions about science, philosophy, politics, and religious pluralism that challenge the fundamentalism with which they were raised.

Philosophy is the «science of common experience» which provides our most fundamental and most certain grasp on reality.

It was also the most helpful for one concerned with nature, science, philosophy, liberal religion, and good writing — all of which my wife had learned to appreciate before I met her.

Recent debates in the pages of First Thingsand other conservative journals over Darwin's theory of evolution and creationism reveal the degree to which Catholics seem stuck in the trees for want of seeing the forest, the lopsided degree to which the Church gives assent to philosophy without deeply exploring the particular science it considers a threat, (this journal, it goes without saying, excepted).

Regardless of my level of understanding of history, science, or philosophy, which I understand offers insight to «Godly» matters, there still is lacking a proof of God.

This is the root of a philosophy of science from Gilson to Caldecott (possibly including Pope Benedict XVI in his Bundestag address) which argues that modern science methodologically excludes formality and teleology from consideration.

actually there is no free will, because we humans is part of god, our conciousness is his.therefore everything we do has a purpose only beyond our immediate comprehension or understanding.the problem lies in our concept or belief of the absoluteness of the philosophy of science, which by itself is part of gods evolutionary process, atheists has this mentality, but since they are part of the process so its gods will through us.

In doing so this group is positively influenced by developments in contemporary philosophy and the social sciences that stress the impossibility of getting beyond particular languages to a reality of which they speak.

For many other scientists, however, and for people of a modernistic bent of mind who saw in the sciences «a new messiah,» or at least a directive of life displacing both religion and philosophy, this preoccupation with the immediacies to the exclusion of ultimates meant frankly a secularizing of life, that is, a relinquishing of all ideal or transcendent aspects which hope and wonder might evoke.

science is not everything, the problem is when the critical and objective philosophy of science is accepted as absolute in reality.God is beyond logic at this point of our consciousness, The process of gods will manfistation is evolution which accepts all variables in the process, the input could be not what scienctists wants.Thats why faith or religion is part of reality.

THAT «S IT... YOU keep trying to push the first cause / prima facea / prime mover garbage... which is entirely unfounded, so exists only in the realm of philosophy, not science.

He noted the peril of specialization in modern culture, which tends to isolate religious thinkers from those in philosophy, art, politics and science.

Instead, we have two competing research programs, each with its own fundamental intuitions and program of inquiry to pursue, as in Imre Lakatos's philosophy of science.15 Only «over the long haul» can we judge which will be more progressive more able to handle the classical challenges raised by the entire history of metaphysics, by dialogue with existing religions (Christian and otherwise), and by the experience of contemporary religious believers.

It's really kind of pathetic that the average atheist on this post is completely incapable of drawing a distinction between Science and philosophy — which includes theology.

Bertalanffy and Laszlo are unfamiliar because they represent a relatively new school of philosophy which takes its insights from the theoretical perspectives of contemporary science and technology rather than from the mainstream of professional philosophy.

Wrestle as we may with the problem of pain in God's world, there is still a meaning in the refrain of that story, «And God saw that it was good,» which neither philosophy nor science can set aside.

The highest science, the loftiest speculation, the mightiest philosophy, which can ever engage the attention of a child of God, is the name, the nature, the person, the work, the doings, and the existence of the great God whom he calls his Father.

The secular form of liberalism for Niebuhr was a philosophy and social ethic which stemmed from a secularized Social Gospel combined with American optimism, faith in the techniques of natural science, and the idea of inevitable social progress.

Hence, faith differs from the intention of philosophy and the natural sciences in its use of reason only in that the datum on which it rests in its entirety is not acknowledged as such by all men.

Indeed, with regard to the historical development of philosophy and science we know it to be the case that it was the doctrine of the Fall, which is peculiar to the Judeo - Christian faith, which enabled the Christian culture to maintain an ontological distinction between matter and evil in the face of cultural opposition.

The Relevance of Cosmic Unity In the lead letter of the same issue of Philosophy Now the prominent anti-reductionist philosopher of ethics and of science Mary Midgely makes a point often made by Edward Holloway (though he might not have used the word «choice»), namely that «simple logic surely shows that natural selection can not be the universal explanation because «selection» only makes sense a clearly specified range of choices — an idea to which far too little attention has been given.»

Can there not therefore be a genuinely fraternal place to discuss openness to the development of doctrine (taking into account contributions of modern sciences, philosophy and humanities) which is both faithful to the hierarchy of dogmatic truths andsympathetic to new methodology and content, without crossing over into an aggressively political or «conciliarist» view of progress?

When speaking of the above «correspondence» he says «the question why this has to be so is a real question, and one which has to be remanded by the natural sciences to other modes and planes of thought - to philosophy and theology.»

The philosopher, George Herbert Mead, was acknowledging this when he wrote in Movements of Nineteenth Century Philosophy that the notion of Order which looms so importantly in modern science and philosophy was taken over from ChristianPhilosophy that the notion of Order which looms so importantly in modern science and philosophy was taken over from Christianphilosophy was taken over from Christian theology.

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.

Reinhold Niebuhr, for example, wrote an exuberant review of Science and the Modern World in which he saw Whitehead's philosophy as «exactly the emphasis which modern religion needs to rescue it from defeat on the one hand and from a too costly philosophical victory on the other.

But he fails even to allude to the radical challenges to this which emerged in the 20th century from some Pragmatists and from Ludwig Wittgenstein, with their «collapse of the fact - value system», a view now prominent in contemporary philosophy of science.

Categories such as «process» [or «evolution»] and «organism,» categories which were present in a number of dynamic philosophies similar in many respects to Whitehead's, 7 were seen as the philosophical basis for a new Christian theism consistent with modern science.

Such developments within academic disciplines are highly significant in a society in which the social sciences are viewed as instruments for the clarification, support and advancement of the government's philosophy and policies.

During the intervening six decades, Kaplan produced an enormous output of essays, articles and books in which he sought to elucidate the significance of the national element in the Jewish religion and the spiritual components of Jewish identity in the light of new developments in the social sciences, philosophy, and theology.

It is a book in which lucid and illuminating reflections on the history of science in relation to philosophy are interspersed with technically difficult passages; the book might have been written, as one reviewer remarked, by Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (Emmett, 1967, p. 293).

The history of philosophy is its testing laboratory and it has had a very complex history which is fully intelligible only in relation to the history of science, also the history of the religions.

For philosophy and theology, in accordance with their doctrine of man, which is prior in principle to that of the natural sciences, affirm an immediate creation of what they call soul.

He is editor - elect of Religious Education, editor of Philosophy of Education 1992, and the author of numerous articles, including «Science and Spirituality: Tradition and Interpretation in Liberal Education,» which will appear in Curriculum Inquiry.

And it was also from Comte and the cultural milieu that popularized his philosophy of science, that Ginzberg learned his own views on the character of the scientific culture into which the Jewish people was emerging.

Joseph Laracy offers a succinct and very helpful overview of the development of post-Reformation philosophy, which through modernism and post-modernism affirms presuppositions which, a priori, make the harmony of science and religion impossible.

Somewhat broader than reductionism, and hence more alluring to many scientists, is the philosophy of naturalism, one variation of which holds: «Only that with which science deals is real.»

Traditions of every kind, hoarded and manifested in gesture and language, in schools, libraries, museums, bodies of law and religion, philosophy and science — everything that accumulates, arranges itself, recurs and adds to itself, becoming the collective memory of the human race — all this we may see as no more than an outer garment, an epiphenomenon precariously superimposed upon all the other edifices of Nature (the only truly organic ones, as it may appear): but it is precisely this optical illusion which we have to overcome if our realism is to reach to the heart of the matter.