Sentences with phrase «science is in question»

I think they've been alarmist and the science is in question,» Graham told reporters.

«I think they've been alarmist and the science is in question,» he told reporters.

Not exact matches

There are many open questions in science — Are we alone in the univerare many open questions in science — Are we alone in the univerAre we alone in the universe?

Perry, in her Fortune panel, alluded to the same basic premise: Any theories supporting or questioning uBeam's science are only theories until there's an actual concrete product.

To understand why graduation rates in computer science are so low for women, we only need to answer one question: Why do 74 % of high school girls report affinity for STEM subjects in school and yet, according to a report by the Girl Scout Research Institute, only about 20 % pursue STEM - related undergraduate degrees?

In 1955, Scientific American asked the question, somewhat sneeringly, about why so many people were «violently against» the process of fluoridating municipal water — a process that, according to the mandarins of science, was clearly shown to prevent tooth decay and do no harm.

(Barron's) • In Search of the Perfect Recession Indicator (Philosophical Economics) • A Fireside Chat With Charlie Munger (MoneyBeat) • Complexity theory and financial regulation (Science) • Five Pieces of Conventional Wisdom That Make Smart Investors Look Dumb (CFA Institute) • This Lawyer Is Hollywood's Complete Divorce Solution (Bloomberg) • Curiosity update, sols 1218 - 1249: Digging in the sand at Mar's Bagnold Dunes (Planetary Society) • The Plot to Take Down a Fox News Analyst (NYT) • Ask the aged: Who better to answer questions about the purpose of life than someone who has been living theirs for a long timIn Search of the Perfect Recession Indicator (Philosophical Economics) • A Fireside Chat With Charlie Munger (MoneyBeat) • Complexity theory and financial regulation (Science) • Five Pieces of Conventional Wisdom That Make Smart Investors Look Dumb (CFA Institute) • This Lawyer Is Hollywood's Complete Divorce Solution (Bloomberg) • Curiosity update, sols 1218 - 1249: Digging in the sand at Mar's Bagnold Dunes (Planetary Society) • The Plot to Take Down a Fox News Analyst (NYT) • Ask the aged: Who better to answer questions about the purpose of life than someone who has been living theirs for a long timin the sand at Mar's Bagnold Dunes (Planetary Society) • The Plot to Take Down a Fox News Analyst (NYT) • Ask the aged: Who better to answer questions about the purpose of life than someone who has been living theirs for a long time?

If you're ready to have prospects fall in love with your marketing and turn your buyer's journey into a science, we'd be happy to share how BrightFunnel can answer the questions above!

For Professor Shi Yong, deputy director of the Research Center on Fictitious Economy and Data Science in Beijing, this is a moral issue, not just a question of governance.

Those could potentially be used to promote your own answers or questions, or you could trade them in via Hexel for hypothetical Reddit tokens that would let that user post on science subreddits reserved for experts.

He is scheduled to answer questions on April 10 in front of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary and the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation.

He explained all the things beautifully and patiently, even taking some offbeat questions in his stride — be it irrational behaviour, asset allocation, behavioural science and the distillate of wisdom of gurus like Munger, Buffet, Fisher, Klermann etc..

If the Universe is still excelerating in it's expansion which it shouldn't be based on Big Dirt Ball theory then we know that even science's most basic assumptions in question.

He also attributes his atheism to his scientific training: «My study of science, trying to find a non-theistic answer to the questions of how the universe is and our place in it, did probably push me away from religious faith.»

If the Universe is still excelerating in it's expansion which it shouldn't be based on Big Dirt Ball theory then we know that even science's most basic assumptions are in question.

Additionally, if beliefs do not stand up to the rigors of scientific investigations and reason, then one would reasonably think that it is the beliefs that should be in question, and severely so, more than the science.

Kant's approach may hold at bay the antihumanism of modern science (we are just clever animals in an insignificant corner of a vast cosmos), and it may serve as a bulwark against the ruthless rationality of economic efficiency and the putative demands of progress, but Michalson concludes that Kant's approach to the question of God makes theology less and not more plausible.

There must be open and frank discussion in the science community in order to answer this question.

If science can not answer a why question, it has been the case 100 % so far that nothing else has an answer either, and there's no reason to think this will change anytime soon in any foreseeable future.

What are you telling me here, that we should go with the crowd because so many people believe in god, or to question science (ergo believe in religion, somehow?)

Whether it is changing text books to teach religion as a «science,» making laws that prohibit stem - cell research which would without question help those in need, to stopping of any kind of gay rights, trying to put religion (christianity) into schools, a woman's right to choose, etc, etc...

Math and science, he said, are taught in the spirit of the humanities even if their questions seem not to be as existentially pressing.

I asked the question to understand how (and if) it is possible to separate science from atheism in the minds of believers so we can truly discuss the concepts based on their evidentiary merits, not necessarily their philosophical implications if indeed there are any to be had.

The real question is how many of them have so much as an A.A. in a hard science?

Faith in creation to Christians is the same belief that Science will eventually find all of the answers to these questions.

It is still a mystery... but I know that science can answer this question in time.

What simpler means in science is much discussed among philosophers — it is not at all a simple question.

The truth is you can go on and on about science and logic all you want but it doesn't address the fundamental questions of our existence, which is where faith comes in.

@Physicist, I would say that most appeals to science are in response to oft asked questions by Theists in the form of, «well, if you don't believe in God how do you explain X?»

In the earliest stages of a religion people are typically looking for ways to explain the unexplainable, such as why it rains, why natural disasters happen, why people get sick, there are seasons, what the stars are, and countless other questions for which current science had no answer thousands of years ago.

But, more importantly to our subject is another question: Why do we presuppose the Bible to always be good science, and especially at our time in history?

Since science can make no authoritative claims in the field of cosmogony, answers to those questions can only come from two other sources, that being philosophy and religion.

Furthermore, they seem happy to accept one unanswered question in return for being able to use God to answer any number of other questions, at least until better answers can be found through science and reason.

Science and belief in God do not have to be at odds and it is okay to ask the hard questions.

«And to focus more precisely on the issue of «scientific evidence,» the sciences, ordered by their nature and method to an analysis of empirically verifiable objects and states of affairs within the universe, can not even in principle address questions regarding God, who is not a being in the world, but rather the reason why the finite realm exists at all.......

Many, many great scientists are writing books on their activities, but books which are in fact philosophical works... Science produces metaphysical questions and, in fact, great scientists tend to solve these problems... The problem is to believe that these solutions belong to science, or to believe that a philosophical solution is given immediately by sScience produces metaphysical questions and, in fact, great scientists tend to solve these problems... The problem is to believe that these solutions belong to science, or to believe that a philosophical solution is given immediately by sscience, or to believe that a philosophical solution is given immediately by sciencescience.

Due to the limited statistical and methodological certainty allowed by biological science, the occurrence of technical errors in biological experiments, the differences between human and animal embryo development, the rapidity by which the cloning procedure produces a totipotent zygote, and the philosophical and theological nature of the question, there is no biological experiment that will prove with moral certainty that a human zygote never exists during the OAR procedure.

It surfaced during the challenges presented to the role of the Church during the Age of Enlightenment in the 17th century; it makes strides upon the publication of The Origin of The Species by Charles Darwin in the 19th century; its has gathered force in the 21st century as the role of science in Western civilization is being presented with its own challenges... of still yet unanswered questions.

Christians end up beating themselves up like Martin Luther did until they are overcome with grace from God while non believers trapped in denial twist science thinking it answers the question of why I am here.

I hope you get the chance to have some deep conversations with Christians who are interested in the same questions you seem to be — science, peace, and justice, humility and integrity.

After this qualification has been made, however, I think Sheldrake's presentation of the hypothesis of formative causation has a major contribution to make to discussion of the central issue in science and religion, namely, the question whether the fabric of nature is in any sense congruous with the religious hypothesis that the universe is purposeful.

And back then, wasn't it the fans wrapped up in «theories» who were ultimately disappointed when they found out that Lost wasn't really concerned with answering the thousands of questions it had raised — that it was less a heady show about theology and science and more an emotional show about its characters and the human experience?

I have a lot of faith in science, not in the unscientific assumption that atheists make that reality is purely mechanistic, but in the procedures of testing hypotheses, questioning assumptions, measuring results, replicating experiments, and in general debating and persuading based on actual evidence.

According to Walton, attempts to mine the ancient text for answers to today's scientific questions amounts to what is called concordism, which holds that the Bible must agree --(be in concord with)-- all the findings of contemporary science.

For example, it is not a sin to have questions about my interpretation of Genesis in light of the science that supports evolution.

Again I am a layman in the world of science and physics, I was a history major, so I apologize if this question is dumb.

I've wrestled with a lot of questions related to science and faith, especially given my location a mere two miles from the famous Rhea County Courthouse where John Scopes was prosecuted for teaching evolution in a public school.

This understanding of the limited scope of scientific method had been generally accepted since Kant's Critique of Pure Reason (1781); but in nineteenth - century evolutionary parlance it took on the specific meaning that «all beginnings and endings are lost in mystery,» a phrase that became commonplace in the sciences and social sciences as a way of dismissing or circumventing probing questions that sought to assess the larger implications or consequences of scientific analysis.

Even in Wesley's time there were scientists and philosophers who questioned the positive connection between science and faith.

Some might question whether such subjective criteria as «beauty» and «harmony» belong in science, where theories can be evaluated objectively by whether they fit the data.