Sentences with phrase «scientific sides of»

According to Avella, Cuomo's office has not shed enough light on the medical and scientific sides of the hydrofracking debate, with opponents arguing that water supplies might become contaminated or ruined due to harmful chemicals used in the process.

Sebastián Cisneros of Cocanú is a unicorn in the chocolate world — one of the few artisans who roasts his own chocolates and crafts them into flavored confections, tapping into both the artistic and scientific sides of this delicious craft.

Some, mainly on the scientific side of the table, have been labelled physicalist reductionists: they hold that the project of science does indeed involve eliminating any «mystical» notions we have ofmentality — the brain, for them, is the mind.

I am concerned, however, that the article leaves the impression that the proper place to draw the line puts neo-Darwinism on the scientific side of the line and the statement «Man is reducible to matter» on the other side.

One is an engineer, one a scientist, and two are diplomats who specialize in the scientific side of foreign policy.

I am not scientist, and I can not say anything about the scientific side of whether climate change is occuring or not.

A study is a study, and the scientific side of my brain can't resist the urge to take a look at the research (biased though it may be).

The first extra included is «Modified Organism: The Science Behind Morgan», which runs about 20 minutes and dives into the scientific side of the films concepts.

As a self professed libertarian on the political side of this matter I would hope that that stand will not bias my thinking on the scientific side of the issue.

The idea behind (getting her on the team) was to add to the scientific side of the quest.

It seems to me that the precuationary principle applies to the scientific side of the argument — we know human civilization, with all its complicated infrastructure functions with CO2 in the 280 - 350 ppmv range.

I wanted to share my passion for the scientific side of beauty with people.

Not exact matches

On the other side, the manufacturers risked being publicly vilified, as well as the long - shot possibility that a sympathetic jury would ignore the lack of scientific evidence.

Christians have voted to put their God's name on everyones money, add «Under God» to the flag salute, force schools to teach intelligent design with absolutely no scientific basis along side the sciences, voted to write their moral laws on the fronts of public courthouses and tax funded buildings, voted to ban certain people from living together, being intimate or raising children because their orientation didn't fit with their bible beliefs.

There is no evidence of a god this side of the Big Bang; every thing we see has a pretty good scientific explanation based on evidence.

Such a «rational», scientific process would demand a fair hearing of both sides of any point of view... but to only consider one side and block out the other is foolish...

In their reaction against scientific scepticism, and scientific generalisation which were as sweeping and as prejudiced as any theological temerity, they failed to distinguish the root causes of the new unbelief from the arrogance of the unbelievers, and met with equal contempt and malediction what could only be properly answered by the careful separation of fact frompresumption and prejudice on either side.

On the other side, humanists develop hermeneutical methods for the interpretation of documents with no regard for scientific thought.

Likewise, experience and memory, so crucial for the scientific endeavor, are nothing more than side effects of the eternal matter - energy cascade.

To attack something when you're too ignorant of the facts (and too lazy to be bothered to learn about the opposing side) to even know what you're attacking only shows how much society has to gain by embracing the scientific method (even if you reject some theories).

Both Creationists and Evolutionists use the same basic scientific method, which means there are great scientists on both sides of the fence.

While on one side not all valid and potentially useful observations should be considered scientific per say, there are publications outside of AI and biology which present discourse on the biological analogs seen in cosmology.

On the theoretical side, it ranges from the speaking or writing of sentences of modest import up to the enunciation of important scientific or philosophical truths; on the practical, it ranges from the involvement of rational speech with the ordinary tasks of daily life up to its involvement with moral decisions of the most momentous kind.

Many clergymen were astonished when President McCosh of Princeton University came out for a truce in the fight and suggested that the Church should not side in scientific disputes.

His, The Wittenburg Door, The Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation, Eternity, Daughters of Sarah, The Reformed Journal, Christianity Today, Inspiration, Moody Monthly, The Christian Herald, Faith at Work, The Other Side — all have had since 1977 major features or whole issues devoted to a Christian understanding of homosexuality.9

This relation of the Christian teaching to life (in contrast with a scientific aloofness from life), or this ethical side of Christianity, is essentially the edifying, and the form in which it is presented, however strict it may be, is altogether different, qualitatively different, from that sort of learning which is «indifferent,» the lofty heroism of which is from a Christian point of view so far from being heroism that from a Christian point of view it is an inhuman sort of curiosity.

We must continually look again at our presuppositions and intellectual commitments as new scientific findings or theological insights emerge — not to reject one side or the other, but to gain a better understanding and appreciation of creation and the role of humanity in it.

Changes on the scientific side can not essentially modify this decision of a theological kind.

From the early beginnings of biological evolutionary theory, in the nineteenth century, two trends of thought have prevailed in scientific circles, developing side by side without mingling to any appreciable extent.

They advocate the inclusion the new physics and the new biology in the high school science curriculum instead of the more typical one - sided presentation of the dominant view of scientific materialism.

To both sides: For a nice summary of the scientific evidence for the afterlife, look up Victor Zammit's website.

It seems to be forgotten that neo-Darwinism is being championed by a dwindling number of atheists on both sides of the Atlantic, though they still control most of TV and the scientific media.

As research progresses we will, hopefully, enlarge the discussion, including other individuals from both sides of the scientific fence.

It comes from a particular vocal group of naturalists on one side and a much smaller but equally noisy lot of creationists on the other, both of whom have increasingly been declaring their respective philosophical views not merely to be true but to be true in a specifically scientific sense.

On the atheist side, undeniable scientific proof of the big bang theory and evolution do not disprove the existence of God.

My purpose, and I presume that of all others who have approached the subject from the scientific side, has been to find a metaphysics which, with the minimum of speculation, finds a place for the obviously primary reality of the stream of consciousness, while fully accepting the findings of science.

In the modern world the technical side of practical reason has taken a more scientific form.

Religion, according to Jung, can help us balance the overpowering influence of objective «reason» and external reality by keeping us in touch with the rich, nonrational side of reality, and giving us a point of reference that transcends society and all the statistical generalizations on which scientific rationalism focuses.

My own inadequate summary of the process conceptuality intrigued them, and it was fortunate that there were present some who were well - known as experts in their own fields of study and who therefore could be given as suitable references for further information about the specifically scientific application of the principles I had discussed from the philosophical side.

Catholic's have been on the right side of scientific discovery for over a thousand years.

Furthermore, he says, people will, under the continuing impact of socialization, demand more democracy in the workplace, increasing participation in both the scientific and the human dynamics side of management, further decolonization where it obtains, and less destructive disruption of the bio-physical universe that threatens all» the least advantaged most directly and immediately.

When one accepts that contraception is the summit of scientific and medical prowess, to hypothesize that negative side effects may exist and warrant further study is tantamount to blasphemy.

While it probably doesn't cure the cold, there is some scientific evidence that chicken soup contains anti-inflammatory properties that can help prevent the miserable side - effects of a cold.

As someone who does not currently collect crystals and is also skeptical of how much a glass can really affect a wine (swigging straight from the bottle is a standard part of my wine reviewing process), I decided to conduct a highly scientific experiment of side - by - side tastings with my fancy - schmancy new universal Zaltos and my tried - and - true standard glasses from Crate & Barrel that I love.

Third, acknowledging that some of the blame for the biased and one - sided media reporting on head injuries rests with some members of the scientific community who issue one - sided press releases and feed cherry - picked results about their findings to selected members of the media, the authors look to a day when the «harsh division and polarization» in the research community (an almost inevitable byproduct, unfortunately, of the intense competition for grant money in Concussion, Inc.), gives way to greater collaboration among researchers and a more «cordial discourse» between scientists via letters and responses to journal editors and back - and - forth debates at large academic conferences.

But I still needed to remind myself of these 13 scientific facts so I could see the good side of breastfeeding.

But there are some scientific facts that will help you see the good side of breastfeeding and remind you why you're doing it for you and your little one.

The important distinction here is — are those on opposite sides of the issue all willing to pay attention to scientific evidence.

These five scientific facts will help you see the good side of supplementing, proving that all of those dirty bottles and breast pads are worth the effort.

But if you know some scientific facts that will help you see the good side of supplementing, you can banish those negative thoughts.