Sentences with phrase «scientific language which»

Dressed up in scientific language which the jury does not easily understand and submitted through a witness of impressive antecedents, this evidence is apt to be accepted by the jury as being virtually infallible and as having more weight than it deserves.

Not exact matches

The language of mythology, or, as I myself prefer to say, metaphor, is the language which religion speaks; it can do no other, for religious faith is neither scientific formulae nor philosophical concepts, but a dramatic, poetic, symbolical way of speaking of the deepest realities and our apprehension of them.

But whereas in translating scientific prose the aim is simply to reproduce with complete accuracy the author's statements, in translating «poetic» language the primary aim is not just to reproduce statements about reality but, as far as may be, to make the same communication of reality — which will mean trying to reproduce something of the author's «tone of voice», something of the mood and colour of tie original.

The problem is that of language - games, in which mythological language is contradicted by scientific language about the same world.

Theologians influenced by positivism, whose adherents saw reality as strictly that which can be experienced through the senses and knowledge as that which can be obtained through a narrow definition of the scientific method, and linguistic analysis, which purported that the only proper function of philosophy is the study of the usage of words and sentences, also treated science and religion as separate realms, distinct «language games,» each with its own set of rules.

The electronic age with its offering of a wide variety of ways to present the human voice has commanded new attention to oral language.1 Perhaps the ascendancy of science and the domination of the scientific method has created such a restricted view of language that a reaction in favor of more dimensions to language is to be taken simply as clear testimony to a general degeneration of meaningful discourse, a degeneration in which the church figures prominently.

Hence, he provides a basis for scientific theory, which is always couched in language which presupposes genuine causal influence (not mere constant conjunction).

The mistake arises when we take language which is deeply contextual, that is confessional, and in the case of Paul probably also liturgical, and turn it into objective assertions of a quasi scientific form that give us information about the eternal fate of non-Christians.

In a section on Lyotard in An Introductory Guide to PostStructuralism and Postmodernism, Madan Sarup points out how Lyotard explicitly contrasts scientific language, the language of verification and falsification, with narrative or story, «which certifies itself without having recourse to argumentation and proof.»

Until 1911 — in An Introduction to Mathematics — he defends his conviction that only mathematics provides a language which guarantees what may be called a highly exact and, in a strict sense, scientific description of the world (cf. IM 5, 17).

Certainly the United States has been well supplied with catastrophic texts, many of which are couched in scientific language, yet seem to attract the attention of major theologians.

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.

Is this compatible with scientific method, which eschews subjective language and adheres strictly to the law of parsimony?

She spent two years in Iowa and became conversant in Russian, which at the time was one of the international scientific languages.

But if you want to dig further and learn how a child's brain and nervous system develop, or understand Siegel's revolutionary theory of Mindsight, on which the tips are based, The Whole - Brain Child provides a rich and illuminating tour of scientific insights — all there in easy - to - read language, illustrated with real scenarios.

And so this was also the beginning of years of study and research into the nature of scientific language and how it could best be taught, which was to culminate many years later in a PhD plus a book on the subject: Text and Argumentation in English for Science and Technology.

You need to assess early in your scientific career which languages you will need to effectively do and present your research.

Many in the scientific community have posited that both speech and language are lateralized — that is, we use only one side of our brains for speech, which involves listening and speaking, and language, which involves constructing and understanding sentences.

Plants and animals had common names, which varied from one location and language to the next, and scientific «phrase names,» cumbersome Latin descriptions that could run several paragraphs.

Nor would he comment on language in the budget proposal which calls for NIF to no longer financially support external scientific users of the facility.

Mente y Cerebro is an edition of Scientific American Mind, which appears in seven languages worldwide in addition to English.

Today Scientific American launches ScientificAmerican.com/espanol, which will provide Spanish - language online readers with authoritative insights and news about the latest developments that matter in science, technology and biomedicine.

The extent to which this legislation would actually impact scientific collaborations is not entirely clear, in part because the proposed legislation's language lacks specificity.

A scientific disagreement — In an 1881 neuroanatomy atlas, Wernicke, a well - known anatomist who in 1874 discovered «Wernicke's area,» which is essential for language, wrote about a fiber pathway in a monkey brain he was examining.

Several scientists believe that holding U.S. meetings under these circumstances would violate the statutes of the International Council for Science, the umbrella organization for scientific societies around the world, which «opposes discrimination based on such factors as ethnic origin, religion, citizenship, language, political or other opinion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, or age.»

At the location of the first SNP, which in scientific language is called «rs362307», half of HD patients have different coloured ribbons in their good and bad kites.

Autophagy describes how cells replace themselves and their components over time; in scientific language, it is the process whereby cytoplasmic components are isolated from the rest of the cell within autophagosomes, which are then fused with lysosomes and degraded.

The Language in Interaction research consortium, which is sponsored by a large grant from the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific research (NWO), brings together many of the excellent research groups in the Netherlands in a research programme on the foundations of language.

To summarize all that dense scientific language, curcumin exhibits some of the most amazing anticancer properties, such as the following, which apply to most cancers:

This alkalizing diet and scientific approach — known as The New Biology ® — is based on their extensive nutritional microbiological work, which spawned their authoring of the globally renowned book series, «The pH Miracle,» which has been printed in over twenty languages.

Scientific psychology is providing new insights into non-conscious synchrony, which is similarities in language and expressions between two people.

For example, science and English language arts teachers may have students read multiple texts about a scientific issue that is relevant to their lives or community, then ask them to evaluate the evidence and reasoning of the various texts in a collaborative discussion and write a persuasive essay in which they take a stance on the issue.

Participants will take part in writing a scientific news report in their native languages on the fascinating topic — Rights of Nature, which they will take back home to their different countries — with their own signatures as authors.

He vigorously defended himself in a lecture, in which he argued that art had moved to attempt to discover the language of pure imagination, rather than the staid and, to his mind, dishonest scientific capturing of landscape.

In contrast to the methods based on dream and automatism postulated by the Parisian Surrealists associated with André Breton, Magritte's unparalleled visual language was grounded in the specifically Belgian manifestation of Surrealism, which called for the application of a dialectic method and scientific thinking.

But is a science paper the best place to «not» use scientific language, or maybe it's okay in science papers to be scientific and then to have folks such as yourself, talking to a non scientific audience, explain what it means using relatable percentages, such as the «roll of the dice» analogy (which really isn't that bad because it is relatable).

But it is the absence of a language in which to express humanism that can sometimes lead to «picking through the scientific evidence for cherries they can pick to support a pre-defined policy position.»

I have to admit that I have jumped into all this theory a bit late on, and terminology which you and the scientific community take for granted are like a foreign language to me.

How much does it effect the big scientific programs / unifying theories / wicked problems like climate change which includes so many subjective judgements and imprecise use of language (and complexity)?

Of course, the Greens abhor empirical scientific methodology as a sexist rape of knowledge, but by appropriating the language of science to advance faith - based mythology they achieve two things: First, they appropriate the authority of science, which in the modern world is the official seal of all approved knowledge and secondly by debasing science in the service of myth, the Greens vandalise the cognitive process of rational inquiry.

On p. 233 of Why We disagree About Climate Change, in Box 7.1, I make the statement «Risbey goes on to accuse those who do not adopt such urgent language in their descriptions of the science as failing in their civic duty in inform the public, a «scientific reticence» which falls short of the standards of impartial communication».

(16 July) On p. 233 of Why We disagree About Climate Change, in Box 7.1, I make the statement «Risbey goes on to accuse those who do not adopt such urgent language in their descriptions of the science as failing in their civic duty in inform the public, a «scientific reticence» which falls short of the -LSB-...]

The reasons for that are many: the timid language of scientific probabilities, which the climatologist James Hansen once called «scientific reticence» in a paper chastising scientists for editing their own observations so conscientiously that they failed to communicate how dire the threat really was; the fact that the country is dominated by a group of technocrats who believe any problem can be solved and an opposing culture that doesn't even see warming as a problem worth addressing; the way that climate denialism has made scientists even more cautious in offering speculative warnings; the simple speed of change and, also, its slowness, such that we are only seeing effects now of warming from decades past; our uncertainty about uncertainty, which the climate writer Naomi Oreskes in particular has suggested stops us from preparing as though anything worse than a median outcome were even possible; the way we assume climate change will hit hardest elsewhere, not everywhere; the smallness (two degrees) and largeness (1.8 trillion tons) and abstractness (400 parts per million) of the numbers; the discomfort of considering a problem that is very difficult, if not impossible, to solve; the altogether incomprehensible scale of that problem, which amounts to the prospect of our own annihilation; simple fear.

It is important to appreciate that the solicitors do not have the expert scientific knowledge but are expected to draw conclusions on what happened; the expert has to provide a report that details and explains medical and scientific matters which can be quite complicated in layman's language.