Sentences with phrase «scientific knowledge as»

This workshop will provide participants with a working knowledge of an integrated model,well - anchored in trauma theory and informed by current scientific knowledge as well as research.

«We can think of scientific knowledge as a consensus of experts.»

Taking into account the scientific knowledge as represented in the recent IPCC reports, global greenhouse gas emissions must stop rising, followed by substantial global emission reductions.

I have attended several of her presentations at scientific meetings on various aspects of the medicine and behaviour of domestic cats and have always found her to be a very informative and engaging speaker firmly founded on scientific knowledge as well as many years of practical experience and observation of the behaviour of cats.

«By looking at how combinations of chemical names occur and evolve in millions of publications over time, we can model scientific knowledge as a network of connections between important molecules,» said Rzhetsky, professor of medicine and human genetics at UChicago, CI Senior Fellow and director of the Conte Center for Computational Neuropsychiatric Genomics.

All of us involved — producers of scientific knowledge as well as funders, publishers and researchers — have a stake in ensuring the continued integrity of global scientific exchange.»

Other colleagues and I have long shared the view that the best way to truly change the situation for minority students is to use our scientific knowledge as a tool for their empowerment.

That same foundation is the basis of all scientific knowledge as it exists today and, for example, accounts for so much that is commonplace and patently correct e.g. electronics, medical and bio-sciences, etc..

That night José Delgado — a pioneer in the control of behavior through electrical and chemical means — spoke of the fact that his researches raised questions that required answers not provided by scientific knowledge as such.

I am not trying to prove that the Qur» an is the word of God using scientific knowledge as a yard stick because any yardstick is supposed to be more superior than what is being checked or verified.

Those religions that see scientific knowledge as a fortification to their beliefs are strong, those that see the same as a threat are weak.

The Cult is related to the phenomenon described as «scientism»; both have a tendency to treat the body of scientific knowledge as a holy book or an a-religious revelation that offers simple and decisive resolutions to deep questions.

Meta — which, in the words of cofounder Sam Molyneux, uses «artificial intelligence to analyze new scientific knowledge as it's published» — partners with academic journals to access many thousands of scientific papers and draw insight from them (beyond the keywords, that is) with the help of a machine learning tool developed by SRI International, which created Apple's spectral personal assistant, Siri.

Not exact matches

As a result, it is not considered scientific knowledge.

Begin with the thought that human development appears these days driven entirely by scientific and technological advances (knowledge) as influencing and influenced by economic, political, and social uses of that knowledge (praxis).

Nothing else is as powerful and definitive as scientific knowledge.

I also think you have to consider some things such as the many medical laws in the Old Testament that were well beyond scientific knowledge at the time, regarding what people were to eat, germs, etc..

Scientism itself could never be proven or established by the scientific method so you have conflict from the get go (i.e. only knowledge out of scientific method is fact can not be proven and it is actually the reverse as the Hubble constant alone disproved all previous known cosmology as to age of the universe).

The growth of biological knowledge is producing scientific facts that contradict the evolutionary theory, not confirm it, a fact that famous Prof. Steven Jay Gould of Harvard has described as «the trade secret of paleontology.»

Even an extreme scientific materialist such as Dawkins has to acknowledge that there is such a thing as moral knowledge, and that it can not come from science because we can not derive «ought» from «is.»

= > There is knowledge other than what is current consensus of scientific facts (they change as we have a history of science).

The present paper assumes an historical perception that the Creation of God is being undone by the power of science and technology, which is being manifested in the form of powers of exclusive truth of scientific knowledge, unlimited technological know - how, and their economic and political organization, such as the transnational corporation and the state, including the military machinery.

As the scientific knowledge can not be separated from the technological process, we should consider the technocratic process as a wholAs the scientific knowledge can not be separated from the technological process, we should consider the technocratic process as a wholas a whole.

The scientific epistemology has dominated human knowledge; especially the method of the natural sciences has been regarded as most reliable not only for natural sciences, but also for social and human sciences.

Many people place man at a higher plateau in knowledge as we learn more and more about our universe through science, and yet our predecessors knew enough to not throw out their religion just because their knowledge grew in scientific matters.

The more I have studied the bible, and believe me I have spent years studying it and other religious books, the more I see this as a hangover from primitive days when our ancestors had no scientific knowledge and had to imagine gods to explain things.

It is necessary to collect the questions posed by contemporary human knowledge, especially scientific, and respond to them, showing the reasons for the faith and the plausibility of believing and living as aChristian.

He urges us to «recognize belief once more as the source of all knowledge» and insists that scientific research is carried on only within «a fiduciary framework».

But before expressing this belief, Fr Holloway makes a general remark about the nature of scientific knowledge which may serve as an introduction to Polanyi's refutation of Scientific Positivism and his proposal that science is Personal Knowledge: «It is most significant that here, as so very often in the discoveries of science, it was not the inductive data which was the real beginning of the breakthrough in knowledge, but a deductive vision glimpsed through scanty data which thrilled and excited the mind... from then on the hunt is up for the clues and the final proscientific knowledge which may serve as an introduction to Polanyi's refutation of Scientific Positivism and his proposal that science is Personal Knowledge: «It is most significant that here, as so very often in the discoveries of science, it was not the inductive data which was the real beginning of the breakthrough in knowledge, but a deductive vision glimpsed through scanty data which thrilled and excited the mind... from then on the hunt is up for the clues and the final prooknowledge which may serve as an introduction to Polanyi's refutation of Scientific Positivism and his proposal that science is Personal Knowledge: «It is most significant that here, as so very often in the discoveries of science, it was not the inductive data which was the real beginning of the breakthrough in knowledge, but a deductive vision glimpsed through scanty data which thrilled and excited the mind... from then on the hunt is up for the clues and the final proScientific Positivism and his proposal that science is Personal Knowledge: «It is most significant that here, as so very often in the discoveries of science, it was not the inductive data which was the real beginning of the breakthrough in knowledge, but a deductive vision glimpsed through scanty data which thrilled and excited the mind... from then on the hunt is up for the clues and the final prooKnowledge: «It is most significant that here, as so very often in the discoveries of science, it was not the inductive data which was the real beginning of the breakthrough in knowledge, but a deductive vision glimpsed through scanty data which thrilled and excited the mind... from then on the hunt is up for the clues and the final prooknowledge, but a deductive vision glimpsed through scanty data which thrilled and excited the mind... from then on the hunt is up for the clues and the final proof.»

As has been argued in the pages of Faith before, as most scientists intuit, scientific knowledge is no more provisional or functional in character than all knowledge of the physicaAs has been argued in the pages of Faith before, as most scientists intuit, scientific knowledge is no more provisional or functional in character than all knowledge of the physicaas most scientists intuit, scientific knowledge is no more provisional or functional in character than all knowledge of the physical.

First, its premisses concerning society and modern man are pseudoscientific: for example, the affirmation that man has become adult, that he no longer needs a Father, that the Father - God was invented when the human race was in its infancy, etc.; the affirmation that man has become rational and thinks scientifically, and that therefore he must get rid of the religious and mythological notions that were appropriate when his thought processes were primitive; the affirmation that the modern world has been secularized, laicized, and can no longer countenance religious people, but if they still want to preach the kerygma they must do it in laicized terms; the affirmation that the Bible is of value only as a cultural document, not as the channel of Revelation, etc. (I say «affirmation» because these are indeed simply affirmations, unrelated either to fact or to any scientific knowledge about modern man or present - day society.)

Even scientific knowledge, which apprehends a thing exactly as it is in all its causes, depends for its truth entirely upon the primary premises given to it by experience (cf. Posterior Analytics 2.19).

In the period when I went to the World Student Christian Federation as a secretary, in 1947 religious scientists worked within the thesis in Martin Buber's I and Thou that separated the scientific I - It approach to things and the knowledge of persons through dialogue and mutual love.

They search for new forms of community but tend to be wary of authority figures and particularly of leaders... The young neotraditionalists also have an almost intuitive attraction to liturgy, ritual, and symbol as forms of knowledge that complement the dominant rational, scientific one.»

The development of the experimental method during the Enlightenment era meant that curiosity became associated with specific scientific endeavours, justified as seeking knowledge for itsown sake.

During the four weeks they try to develop in the seminar participants as much understanding as possible, based on scientific knowledge.

As this vocation is lived in the sober unity of scientific knowledge and human achievement it is prevented from becoming mere humanitarian twaddle.

I do not mean that they had a knowledge of scientific evolution but that they looked upon reality as a process of growth.

everything in the universe evolves, not only life forms but also memes, Religion is a meme so it also change in conformity to its era or time of its conception as faith.Because in pre scientific times thousands of years ago, the scientific method of approach or philosophy has not existed yet, myth or merely story telling is considered facts, The first religion called animism more than 10,000 years ago believed that spirits or god exists in trees, rivers, mountains, boulders or in any places people at that time considered holy.hundreds of them, then when the Greeks and Romans came, it was reduced to 12, they called it polytheism, when the Jews arrived, it was further reduced to 1, monotheism.its derivatives, Christianity And Islam and later hundreds of denominations that includes Mormonism and Protestants flourished up to today.So in short this religions evolved in accordance to the scientific knowledge of the age or era they existed.If you graph the growth of knowledge, it shows a sharp increase in the last 500 years, forcing the dominant religions at that time to reinterprete their dogmas, today this traditional religions are becoming obsolete and has to evolve to survive.But first they have to unify against atheism.in the dialectical process of change, Theism in one hand and the opposing force atheism in the other, will resolve into a result or synthesis.The process shall be highlighted in the internet in the near future.

As science learns more and more about how the Universe works, the ignorance gaps in our scientific knowledge become smaller and smaller... the same with your man made god named Jehovah.

As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and do not make apodictic propositions; instead, they aim for predictive and explanatory force.

Those who think that the only knowledge worth anything is scientific knowledge are quite apt to dismiss the Bible as irrelevant and untrue.

Despite this intense examination the theory has only strengthened and solidified as scientific knowledge has expanded.

For example, the canons of valid scientific knowledge are as much a matter of democratic concern as are the principles of representation in government.

Scientists use theories as a foundation to gain further scientific knowledge, as well as to accomplish goals such as inventing technology or curing disease.

Science is constantly in motion as we strive to fill the gaps in our knowledge and understanding, and the scientific method leaves nothing off the chopping block for further refinement and alteration to fit the mounting evidence about how the world works around us.

The same people who shoot down religious based knowledge are the same people who lap up everything the scientific community spews out; you're just as bad and stop trying to convince yourself otherwise.

Scientism is the view that the only things which count as knowledge come from the scientific method.

God is neither an object of scientific investigation nor something that we can insert in the treasure of our knowledge, as one mounts a rare stamp in a special place in an album — there it is, finest and costliest of all.

Lesser men than the great scientists too readily assumed that all new knowledge must be made to fit the «scientific» dogma, just as earlier it was expected to fit the ecclesiastical dogma.