Sentences with phrase «scientific knowledge from»

Joseph and Almeida, who spent three years digging through ancient Indian texts and Vatican archives, believe Jesuit priests brought scientific knowledge from southern India to Western Europe.

Not exact matches

Alongside partner nference (an AI platform company whose stated goal is «automated extraction of knowledge from the commercial, scientific and regulatory body of literature»), the organizations are launching a new firm called Qrativ with the help of $ 8.3 million in Series A financing.

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.

Trump's protestations to the contrary aside, scientific evidence shows that the mere knowledge that one has profited from a relationship in the past often leads to preferential behavior.

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).

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.»

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

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.

What religion offers: — The opportunity to avoid eternal punishment for not worshiping / believing in my god (not worried enough to care)-- An explanation for the universe and why we are here (I'll take the knowledge gained from the application of the scientific method, but thanks)-- Living forever in heavenly bliss (I am content with this life)-- The opportunity to divide humanity based upon different belief systems (There is enough dividing us already)-- Purpose, a code of ethics, and fulfillment (I have that already, without religion)-- Develop a personal relationship with god (I've never seen or heard from any gods nor have I seen any independantly verified scientifically collected peer reviewed proof.

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.»

Later the idea gained ground that we can not «speak of nature apart from human perception in the historical development of knowledge», that all knowledge is «a creative interaction between the known and the knower» and that therefore there is no System of scientific knowledge or of technology which does not have the subjective purposes and faith - presuppositions of humans built into it.

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

We can understand and sympathize with those who sought to protect faith from scientific knowledge in this way.

From that perspective, one knows that not everything that is real is observable, that even scientific knowledge is partial and fallible, and that religious and scientific truth claims can in principle be perfectly compatible, even complementary.

when i was in grade school i constantly read science books, i knew the position of the planets, their distances from the sun, diameters, etc. however, by the time i graduated high school, 50 % of the scientific knowledge i had gained had already been proved untrue.

I am amazed that people can't see the obvious, the bible is not a timeless book of laws from an omniscient being, it is a man made docu ment based on the moral, technological, and scientific state of knowledge millennia ago.

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

For us Muslims the Qur» an is the Furqan i.e. criteria to judge right from wrong and the ultimate yardstick which is more superior to scientific knowledge.

With ideas gotten from sense experience the mind constructs scientific knowledge.

All knowledge, including scientific knowledge, comes ultimately from personal experience (though scientists can not, for example, directly observe the subatomic particles whose existence they infer from their experiments).

In either case, the arrival of man — as distinguished from merely his carcass — necessarily involved a creative act and a power outside the realm of material nature where scientific knowledge is sovereign.

I also got some neat stories from it, but scientific breakthroughs has furthered my knowledge of the world and universe around me, given me the tools to think critically and not just «go with the flow»

«Ignoring» this has followed, at least in part, the intellectual defeat of the previous defences of the spiritual soul from abstract knowledge by nominalistic interpretations of scientific methodology (see our recent «Experimental Success» and «Human Dignity» posts).

In spite of all our modern sophistication, scientific knowledge, technological expertise, philosophical wisdom and traditional forms of spirituality, it is from these basic instincts for survival and regeneration that the new path of faith will come.

«Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God.

Constantly attempting, as he tells us, to bracket from his scientific method of investigation «faith - knowledge» and to «prescind» from the teachings of the church, he nevertheless» in as naive a fashion as one can imagine» fails to bracket the «knowledge» he has imbibed from the political culture around him, knowledge which assures him that our society has been mistaken in its exaltation of the individual.

I'll try to add my own slant, which from my personal perspective is confirmed for me by what I understand of current scientific knowledge.

The Old and New Testaments do not contradict any present day scientific knowledge about the universe, proving that scripture did not come from men.

The following extracts from that work show the unity of fundamental Christian vision and scientific knowledge which he preserved to the end.

Any thought, any faith, or belief can be called delusion if it differs from our knowledge of reality, from proven scientific principles, and so on.

Scientific knowledge is not validated without the concurrence of inquirers everywhere, and the fund of human knowledge, skill, and beauty needs replenishment from men of genius in every land.

In these questions there is doubtless at work in Aristotle's mind a concept of bodies that is pragmatically oriented to the world of things, a concept that Whitehead, from the higher vantage point afforded by modem scientific knowledge, is able to dismiss.

We will never truly know all scientific fact or how one should morally act in all situations, but restricting and freezing that knowledge scientifically to just what we know now, or religiously to just what we knew then or in our own little private group (atheist or non-atheist), will only keep both sides eternally from ever getting as close to the truth as they could.

The Universe, known and unknown, is possibly not the most used definition of God, at least in the western world... but it is the Pantheistic version that jives so much more with science and is not a misappropriation of the smaller definitions of God, merely an unfamiliar definition to those with less knowledge of various more advanced religious and philosophic thought, within and outside those religions... The idea of Pantheism also thoughtfully considers why there is, rather than ridiculing, such a wide range of philosophical and ritual beliefs from a scientific perspective... without having to classify large groups of people, as senseless idiots from one end or destined for hell from the other.

The scientific knowledge so obtained may be put together in a general theory that usually comes from the pooling of the knowledge and experience of many scientists.

Although religious knowledge is different from scientific knowledge in character, it is distinguished not by any appeal to historical revelation, but rather only by the greater immediacy of that reality which it empirically apprehends and describes.

It seemed to him necessary to distinguish the immediate «acquaintance with» God of the religious person from the indirect «knowledge about» to which at best scientific knowledge could lead.

The transcendence of life and human mind were evolutionary from the non-living to living entities, but scientific knowledge is quite insufficient to give satisfactory accounts of these transitions.

You can not isolate this one item from all the massively integrated whole that is the sum total of our scientific knowledge — you can't pick and choose!

Far from claiming to be Kantian, Bergson at least claims to be diametrically opposed to the necessary relegation of human knowledge (either scientific or philosophical) to the sphere of the merely phenomenal.

He feels that the relativism of knowledge was implicitly contained in a confusion in scientific theory from the time of Galileo: «The idea of a science and of an experience entirely relative to the human understanding was therefore implicitly contained in the conception of a science, one and integral composed of laws: Kant only brought it to light» (CE 251).

Deduced from metaphysical assumptions, it ignored developing scientific knowledge.

I suggest that language is sufficiently powerful to express this enrichment, and that it is a form of knowledge which is being thus expressed, albeit not of scientific knowledge in the sense of Weizsaecker («testable predictions on precisely formulated alternatives»); from this point of view, the first and second strategy appear to be complementary.

In facilitating the exchange of scientific knowledge on organic food and farming systems, TIPI is committed to engaging all stakeholders who benefit from Organic Agriculture research.

It is only with the industrial revolution and increased scientific knowledge of sanitation that brewers gained the ability to prevent beer from souring naturally.

The difference from where we were before and where we are today as a result of this relationship between FIAL, ourselves, and CSIRO, is the fact that we did not have to invest in scientific capabilities that would take a number of years to materialise and to bear fruit, and we had immediate access to an existing knowledge base that was at arm's reach for us.

-- Stephen Keith Sagarin Love and Knowledge: Recovering the Heart of Learning through Contemplation — Arthur Zajonc Teachers» Self - Development as a Mirror of Children's Incarnation: Part I — Renate Long - Breipohl Of Seeds and Continents: Reliability, Predictability, and Scientific Knowing — Michael D'Aleo Reports from the Research Fellows Honest, Complete Assessment and Social Renewal: A Revolution — Patrice Maynard Crisis in the Kindergarten — Joan Almon and Edward Miller Henry Barnes and Waldorf Education: A Personal Tribute — Douglas Sloan

The Lancet series will explore ways of applying scientific knowledge to help children get the best from their early years.

Respectively based at the Université de Montréal and Université Laval (Quebec, Canada), these two organizations have built over the years a solid network of international experts who gather, synthesize and comment, in their respective domain of expertise, the most up - to - date scientific knowledge available on the development of young children, from conception to age five.

I can not accept the idea that not all sources of knowledge are equal, and that training, experience and the scientific method allow others to speak with authority that exceeds mine, derived from armchair speculation and casual reading.