Sentences with phrase «physics than biology»

Not exact matches

More recent biology and physics have replaced this view with one that asserts that the physical world is composed of energy rather than passive matter.

Such a notion as emergence, for example, which is closely allied with the principle of indeterminacy and uncertainty and which was later to develop in physics, actually assumed more credence in physics before it took root in biology and psychology; yet it has more significant implications for the data of the organic and social sciences than for physics.

One prominent evolutionary biologist recently wrote, «In science's pecking order, evolutionary biology lurks somewhere near the bottom, far closer to phrenology than to physics.»

To that extent the formula more or less fits physics and biology, though to different degrees, but more than it does philosophy and other branches of inquiry which directly concern man as a whole, in his totality.

From this Stoeger argues that «special divine action» is really a matter of the «higher laws of nature» as they actually function, rather than as we understand them, subsuming, modifying and marshalling the «lower orders of nature»; those of physics, chemistry and biology.

In a few thousand years of recorded history, we went from dwelling in caves and mud huts and tee - pees, not understanding the natural world around us, or the broader universe, to being able to travel through space, using reason to ferret out the hidden secrets of how the world works, from physics to chemistry to biology, we worked out the tools and rules underpinning it all, mathematics, and now we can see objects that are almost impossibly small, the very tiniest building blocks of matter, (or at least we can examine them, even if you can't «see» them because you're using something other than your eyes and photons to view them) to the very farthest objects, the planets circling other, distant stars, that are in their own way, too small to see from here, like the atoms and parts of atoms themselves, detected indirectly, but indisputably THERE.

Surely you're not so arrogant as to think you understand particle physics and biology better than all the scientists in the world.

But in the twentieth century, the main influences of science on religion have come less from specific theories — such as quantum physics, relativity, astronomy, or molecular biology — than from views of science as a method.

The true testing ground for the implicate - order strategy, it seems to me, may indeed be biology rather than physics, where abstract methods are so powerful as to perhaps make it dispensable: just as the old style building - block materialist was refuted not by philosophical polemic, but by the one authority in which he trusted, i.e., by physics itself, so the nothing - but reductionist in contemporary biology will modify his views should it be possible some day to provide him with a mathematical language that fills the currently existing gap between our formal knowledge of gene structure and combinations, and our intuitive apprehension of growth and shape.

She has a PhD in chemistry, three inventor patents and more than 50 publications to her name — all of which, she says, give her a valuable perspective when teaching physics, chemistry and biology in the classroom.

In the House, key lawmakers have made headway with the notion that the social sciences and climate research contribute less to the nation than «pure» disciplines, such as physics, biology, engineering, and computing.

There's pure biology, chemistry, and physics, as there has always been, but today many people understand more than ever that we must cross boundaries and blend fields.

Susan Gaidos has been writing about discoveries in areas ranging from biology and neuroscience to physics and technology for more than three decades.

The potential applications of biology are certainly more exciting these days than those of physics.

These differences are not small; over the course of a career, a graduate with a physics degree can expect to earn an average of about $ 1532 a month more than a graduate with a biology degree.

W: This is more of a physics experiment than biology: Take a polystyrene dish and put a bunch of little steel balls into it, then put a magnet underneath.

In this issue you'll also meet scientists who are proving quantum physics and biology go together like peanut butter and jelly, and get the inside scoop on a proposed «superclock» that would be more accurate than any timekeeper ever created.

Argonne National Laboratory has more than 200 research programs in basic and applied science, including mathematics and computer science, environmental research, materials science, physics, chemistry, energy research, biology and advanced nuclear reactor technology.

Located at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, the NERSC Center serves more than 6,000 scientists at national laboratories and universities researching a wide range of problems in combustion, climate modeling, fusion energy, materials science, physics, chemistry, computational biology, and other disciplines.

In science, it found, more than 95 percent had taken biology, 45 percent had taken chemistry, and 20 percent had taken physics.

These results imply that a greater percentage of physics students engaged in higher order technology integration in their learning than did the biology students.

They found that the physics teachers and students reported more use of their laptops than did their biology counterparts, particularly in regard to higher order, engaging activities such as simulations.

Last year, about 12,000 more students were awarded an A * or A at GCSE in each of the three sciences (chemistry, biology and physics) than in 2009, an increase of 24 %.

Rather than having a preset tree of technology for each research path — physics, biology and engineering — that you progress along you'll be dealt random cards out of a deck, with some rare cards representing large leaps forward in the advancement of your species.

There is no such clash between modern physics and climate science; rather, AGW sceptics (even those few who may still deserve that title rather than «denialist») are in the position of Darwin's opponents in biology and geology — desperately hopping from one will - o» - the - wisp objection to another, without any sign of an overarching theory.

However, biology is a lot complex than the sophomore physics (conservation of energy, GHG behavior) behind AGW.

The scientists examined more than 15,000 combined pages from current editions of 16 leading physics, biology and chemistry undergraduate textbooks.

The laws of physics, chemistry and biology say there can be no sustained net mass output from an ecosystem for more than a few years.

This is typical of much global warming theorizing that over-relies on radiative physics (based on lab tests & QM) and views the climate as as a primarily linear chemical - thermodynamic system, rather than one modulated by biology and interacting feedbacks.

One can not work out from basic physics, chemistry or biology, an argument that capitalism or its alternatives are better or worse than each other.

Climatology is more like economics than like biology or physics.

While I have my own area of technical knowledge, including some basic physics and biology, it does not extend to the core science of AGW, and so I make no direct comment on it, other than to say it has been one of the most intensely studied and debated scientific issues in history and I find it difficult to believe that the vast majority of climate scientists have got it completely wrong.