Sentences with phrase «science as a process»

Volume VII, Number 1 Creating a Sense of Wonder in Chemistry — David Mitchell Science as Process or Dogma?

Researchers on both sides of the issue are set to gather in August at Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory in Laurel, Md., for what's being called «The Great Planet Debate: Science as Process.»

Elani McDonald will also address the demands to incorporate IT into advancing teaching of maths and science as a process of bettering understanding of STEM subjects.Middlesborough College's Richard Spencer, finalist of the secondary Global Teacher Prize, provides his top tips to get students interested in science, while there will also be a seminar exploring what «outstanding» levels of science looks like and how you can replicate this for students — from primary to A levels.

I also love to write about science as process, including the failures, to convey the value of some theory once tested.

James J. Kay described Post-normal science as a process that recognizes the potential for gaps in knowledge and understanding that can not be resolved other than through revolutionary science, thereby arguing that (in between revolutions) one should not necessarily attempt to resolve or dismiss contradictory perspectives of the world (whether they are based on science or not), but instead incorporate multiple viewpoints into the same problem - solving process.

Please say a special prayer for the survival of science as a process of «truthing» on this last day of the Lisbon Workshop to try to reconcile dishonest climate predictions with basic principles of science.

They tend to portray science as a process by which alternative «ways of knowing» struggle for supremacy via an essentially political and social process.

In Hull's Science as a Process he shows how researchers create a facade of consensus to advance their «school» against rival «schools» but in many cases members of the same «school» violently disagree about fundamental issues.

What Mann and many others confuse is the difference between science as a process, and science as an institution.

Science as a process is generally approved of by all, and hence there should be support for its independence and protection as a hugely useful tool of society.

But what Lewandowsky reveals is the consequence of confusing science as a process — a method — and science as an institution.

A point made here a lot is that there is a routine confusion between science as a process (the scientific method), and science as an institution.

By that I mean that science as a process requires transparency as to all information needed to replicate your work.

That sense of science as a process.

The only way Cox can sustain his claim to be the champion of science, then, is if we note the difference between science as a process and Science as an institution.

Challenges to that form of politics look to its advocates as denial of science, but it is they, who would so easily dismiss criticism on that basis, who are anti science as a process though not science as an institution.

Not exact matches

While working as the board's science consultant, Newnham studied the process scientists use to conduct experiments.

-- Rick Morrison, CEO of Comprehend Systems, which works with big names in the life - sciences industry, such as Boston Scientific, Astellas, and AstraZeneca, modernizing and improving the quality in their clinical process through cloud - based tech.

As a result, you can make more sense of your data — and unify your business processes into simpler dashboards that don't require a computer science degree to use.

Plus, as UC Berkeley's Greater Good Science Center recently pointed out, a growing number of studies also show that in specific situations, too much good cheer is actually counterproductive (beyond the obvious like going through the grieving process).

As well as being highly skeptical of the science behind General Fusion's designs, Vogt is critical of the way the company received financing from SDTC, claiming it ducked the normal process of receiving government fundinAs well as being highly skeptical of the science behind General Fusion's designs, Vogt is critical of the way the company received financing from SDTC, claiming it ducked the normal process of receiving government fundinas being highly skeptical of the science behind General Fusion's designs, Vogt is critical of the way the company received financing from SDTC, claiming it ducked the normal process of receiving government funding.

Being an EIR has exposed me to the process of deliberating and deciding on a deal from the investor's persective, which I've come to see as a blend of art and science.

Maybe if you can start to try to wrap your head around that concept... then you have just started to understand that science will NEVER figure that out and there is no evolutionary process that will ever make us understand... so you are left with only one inference (as you guys like to say)... it is GOD

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.

As strange and interesting as the process sounds, it brings up many ethical questions on how far is too far to go with sciencAs strange and interesting as the process sounds, it brings up many ethical questions on how far is too far to go with sciencas the process sounds, it brings up many ethical questions on how far is too far to go with science.

This theological perspective has a profound implications for the correction of the scientific epistemology, which tends to regard as the objective and objectifying process, although nowadays there are efforts to correct this situation among the scientists and philosophers of science.

Perhaps the major difference is that, whereas the dominant traditions see this critique as freeing theology to function as an independent discipline with little attention to the sciences, the process tradition sees this as an opportunity to reconstruct both theology and the sciences so as to bring them into a new synthesis.

(3) Evolutionary scenarios share in the naturalistic bias of science (as the investigation of natural processes), which tends to weight evolution in the direction of a philosophical naturalism.

The present - day methodology of history and science as an accurate accounting of historical events and an objective description of physical processes simply didn't exist when these stories were composed.

As Aristotle says often and as Thomas repeats in ST1.75.6, there is «one science of contraries» — which is simply to say that the intellect stands above such physical processeAs Aristotle says often and as Thomas repeats in ST1.75.6, there is «one science of contraries» — which is simply to say that the intellect stands above such physical processeas Thomas repeats in ST1.75.6, there is «one science of contraries» — which is simply to say that the intellect stands above such physical processes.

not a random process at all), evolution as «just a theory» (might want to learn what theory means in science), and Darwin's BS deathbed recantation identify you as having gotten your information from misleading sources, i.e., sources that have little understanding, and perhaps very little honesty, concerning evoutionary research.

Process 26), or an «ultimate individual fact» which he says «must be describable as process» (Modes 120, Adventures 199, emphasis added), or the self that determines itself (Modes 131), or the «substantial activity of individualization» (Science 123), or when he also says «the subject of the feeling is causa sui» and any feeling is impossible to understand «without recourse to the whole subject» (Process 221, emphasis Process 26), or an «ultimate individual fact» which he says «must be describable as process» (Modes 120, Adventures 199, emphasis added), or the self that determines itself (Modes 131), or the «substantial activity of individualization» (Science 123), or when he also says «the subject of the feeling is causa sui» and any feeling is impossible to understand «without recourse to the whole subject» (Process 221, emphasis process» (Modes 120, Adventures 199, emphasis added), or the self that determines itself (Modes 131), or the «substantial activity of individualization» (Science 123), or when he also says «the subject of the feeling is causa sui» and any feeling is impossible to understand «without recourse to the whole subject» (Process 221, emphasis Process 221, emphasis added).

As seen from the perspective of science, evolution is simply a process involving the gradual emergence of more and more complex entities and societies.

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.

Process thought is usually defined in one of three ways: (1) as any view of reality that is dynamic and relational and based on the findings of modern science, (2) identified with «the Chicago School,» the University of Chicago Divinity School, both in its earlier phase of applying evolutionary theory to historical research, seeing religion as a dynamic movement that reconstitutes itself in response to felt needs, as well as its later philosophical phase, and (3) synonymous with the philosophy of Whitehead and Hartshorne.

As neil degrasse tyson pointed out, each of our great mathematicians and scientists throughout the centuries reached their limit and declared God did it... only to have the next guy push though that barrier, reach their own limit... and claim the same... This lady has the benefit of history and science at her finger tips, and judging by her credentials is no stranger to the scientific process, and still fell into the same trap...

The tension I have in mind is generated by (i) this process of temporally ordered actual occasions articulating his vision of the metaphysical ultimatum — atomism — and (ii) the complex product of this process which he so obviously cherished as an organic interconnectedness — the web of interrelations which comprise a world so badly misunderstood by the science Whitehead himself prehended from out of his immediate past.

Science in the Modern World can be read as an exercise of the process of imaginative generalization, as it has just been described.

We, however, have also argued that there is another kind of actual occasion, though at the same scale as quantum events, responding to the elemental and fundamental beats, musical lures, basic rhythms constitutive of cosmic order; in time, we believe that new sciences, such as chronobiology, will shed light on this process.

Many scientists are certainly skeptical of many of the finer points of evolution, but as a whole, the evolutionary process is accepted as fact amongst any and all biologists that put science ahead of religion.

Obviously this process of descent has not been observed, but there exists so much overwhelming evidence supporting it that most scientists (and probably all scientists in the life sciences) consider it a fact as well.

As being can never be studied as an independent object, the history of metaphysical thought can not be without implications for the history of being:» [E] very science goes through a process of historical development in which, although the fundamental or general problem remains unaltered, the particular form in which this problem presents itself changes from time to time; and the general problem never arises in its pure or abstract form, but always in the particular or concrete form, determined by the present state of knowledge or, in other words, by the development of thought hithertAs being can never be studied as an independent object, the history of metaphysical thought can not be without implications for the history of being:» [E] very science goes through a process of historical development in which, although the fundamental or general problem remains unaltered, the particular form in which this problem presents itself changes from time to time; and the general problem never arises in its pure or abstract form, but always in the particular or concrete form, determined by the present state of knowledge or, in other words, by the development of thought hithertas an independent object, the history of metaphysical thought can not be without implications for the history of being:» [E] very science goes through a process of historical development in which, although the fundamental or general problem remains unaltered, the particular form in which this problem presents itself changes from time to time; and the general problem never arises in its pure or abstract form, but always in the particular or concrete form, determined by the present state of knowledge or, in other words, by the development of thought hitherto.

6 The term «event,» used predominantly in Whitehead's Science and the Modern World, does not have precisely the same meaning as «actual occasion» (the term used extensively in Process and Reality).

Ford tells us that this is especially true of Process and Reality but that it applies to Science and the Modern World as well.

Finally, in Science, Secularization and God Kenneth Cauthen seeks to show how a version of process theology (drawn from Brightman, Tillich and Teilhard, as well as Whitehead) can positively relate the creative and redemptive God of Christianity to «currents springing from science and seculariScience, Secularization and God Kenneth Cauthen seeks to show how a version of process theology (drawn from Brightman, Tillich and Teilhard, as well as Whitehead) can positively relate the creative and redemptive God of Christianity to «currents springing from science and seculariscience and secularization.

This is important to our current argument because it shows that our common sense — and even our medical science — recognizes that even our physical health, much less reality as a whole, can not be reduced to physical processes alone.

In speaking of science, the Pope appears, at Regensburg, to give some support for a reductionist understanding of the object of natural sciences, which process is proposed as following upon holistic «reasoning», that is metaphysics.

Today, we have to bring the same process to its ful lment as both the new truths and the speci c errors sown in the beginnings of the age of science ripen to harvest.

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.

He contrasts this 44 percent with the mere 9 percent who believe in a «naturalistic evolutionary process not guided by God,» and goes on to say that «the philosophy [sic] of the 9 percent is now to be taught in the schools as unchallengeable truth» (again, incorrect — science is not presented as unchallengeable truth).