Sentences with phrase «than a scientific method»

It's probably due more to natural intuition than scientific method.

Not exact matches

Isaacson noted Da Vinci's «willingness to challenge received wisdom would lead him to craft an empirical approach for understanding nature that foreshadowed the scientific method developed more than century later... His method was rooted in experiment, curiosity, and the ability to marvel at phenomena that the rest of us rarely pause to ponder after we've outgrown our wonder years».

The only other comment I'd have is that whilst he meets a much higher standard of scientific approach than the snake oil dressed as financial advice elsewhere, the core testing methods used are opaque and (as far as I can tell) not peer reviewed or made available for scrutiny.

Scientists, for their part, especially those in the scientific community with burdens against religion, need to understand that the nature of scientific evidence, method and hypotheses and the nature of theological evidence, method, and hypothesis have more in common than they might imagine.

Suffice it to say that Bill Nye has been around science and the scientific method first hand a lot more than Kan Ham has been talking to some god.

If you admit the value of the scientific method, if you value the process of questioning assumptions, and requiring evidence to support assertions, rather than the idea of holding assertions because they are plesant, then your beliefs should be tossed out.

Science and the scientific method is universal and consistent all over the World whereas religion is regional and a person's religious conviction, no matter how deeply held, is clearly nothing more than an accident of birth

Evidence that probably shows you more than what a human being backed with a theory about the scientific method, possible misunderstandings and personal opinions can offer you.

Although atheism is semantically the rejection of the claim of an existence of a god, it is also the result of careful scrutiny of reality as explained and analyzed using the scientific method, which in the 21st century is far more reliable than what was used in 1st century bronze aged Palestine.

Knowledge is far more than facts subject to scientific method.

Although I think the classic scientific method proves more than most folks choose to see.

Again, proof and evidence guided by the scientific method or a preponderance of evidence weighed objectively seems to work better than taking as «proof» anecdotal testimony.

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.

You should let them know that their application of the scientific method to the interpretation of evidence is no more or less credible than solving crimes with psychic powers.

You need to prove, or at least provide real evidence (scientific method, rules of evidence), before we can move on to using The Babble for anything more than fire starter or toilet paper.

Also the scientific method is more than a concept, it actually describes a way of thinking.

If you accept the carbon 14 dating method as accruate as the entire scientific community does, than that woudl be «proof» that dinosaurs and vegitation fossils are as old as estimated.

Doc, I like your approach of contrasting dogma and the scientific method better than my approach of limiting the issue to the literal interpretation of texts.

The understanding is clear for those who believe and when God says I will wipe away every tear and create a new heaven and earth we will see that the missing limb had a purpose greater than what is observable in the physical or measurable by earthly standards (scientific method).

The scientific method of study and inquiry, important and indeed essential as it is to us, does not lead us to absoluteness of truth any more than the supposed divine revelation did.

(c) Science and the scientific method is universal and consistent all over the World whereas Christianity is regional and a person's Christianity, no matter how deeply held, is clearly nothing more than geographical upbringing; or

(c) Science and the scientific method is universal and consistent all over the World whereas Catholicism is regional and a person's Catholicism, no matter how deeply held, is clearly nothing more than geographical upbringing; or

Yet men have always somehow known that man is more than animal, and it is verily a peculiar kind of scientific method which can no longer see the differences that separate man and beast and machine.

The critique of historical criticism's limit the standard one: it is reductionistic, it claims to subordinate the text to scientific methods when in fact it has philosophical presumptions, and it tends to read the biblical text as a set of fragments rather than as a unified whole.

Rationalism and scientism (belief in the epistemological supremacy of reason and especially of scientific method) produced the conjecture, in some quarters at least, that the symbolic / mythic / poetic / narrative modes of expression employed by all the religions are perhaps nothing more than our own subjective projections or constructs, and not representations of an independent sacral reality.

Atheists don't wage wars, they try to explain thing via the scientific method, not kill all the people who think differently than they do.

Palmer always uses the term «objective» to describe the antagonistic posture of the isolated, active knower who seeks, for purposes of manipulation and control, to grasp, through the scientific method, the passive objects of the world in such a way that the knowledge that results «will reflect the nature of the objects in question rather than the knower's whims.»

Some nations were better poised than others to take advantage of innovation — England in particular, because it had a relatively open society with more scope for entrepreneurship; strong institutions of political liberty; a commitment to the scientific method exemplified by Newton; lots of seaports and colonies; a relative isolation that reduced the risk of invasion; and lots and lots of coal.

Rather than using the scientific method to test the hypothesis that torture doesn't work, we should consider whether or not a culture of torture belongs in the kind of society we want to build.

(c) Science and the scientific method is universal and consistent all over the World whereas religion is regional and a person's religious conviction, no matter how deeply held, is clearly nothing more than an accident of birth; or

A scientist should know better than to deal in this kind of absolute, without using the scientific methods.

What kind of stupid argument is it to cast aspersions onto the scientific method because YOU can't put up any demonstrable proof for the philosophy that you claim is more than mere philosophy?

I am (a) A victim of child molestation (b) A r.ape victim trying to recover (c) A mental patient with paranoid delusions (d) A Christian The only discipline known to often cause people to kill others they have never met and / or to commit suicide in its furtherance is: (a) Architecture; (b) Philosophy; (c) Archeology; or (d) Religion What is it that most differentiates science and all other intellectual disciplines from religion: (a) Religion tells people not only what they should believe, but what they are morally obliged to believe on pain of divine retribution, whereas science, economics, medicine etc. has no «sacred cows» in terms of doctrine and go where the evidence leads them; (b) Religion can make a statement, such as «there is a composite god comprised of God the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit», and be totally immune from experimentation and challenge, whereas science can only make factual assertions when supported by considerable evidence; (c) Science and the scientific method is universal and consistent all over the World whereas religion is regional and a person's religious conviction, no matter how deeply held, is clearly nothing more than an accident of birth; or (d) All of the above.

That democracy can be made to work, that by the scientific method we can gain mastery over the latent resources of the universe, that trial by jury is practicable, that torture is a foolish method of seeking evidence in the courts, that chattel slavery is a failure — such things we take for granted, not because we individually are wiser than our forebears, who disbelieved them all, but because we share in a social tradition which we did not even help to create, but which has shaped and conformed our thinking with irresistible power.

In every medical specialty other than obstetrics, the scientific method is applied to improve medical protocols.

It is a fundamental requirement of scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world, rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation.

IARC's focus on conducting hazard rather than risk assessments is because the agency refuses to «bring their scientific methods into the modern age,» Lucas said.

Rather than ruling out ideas on the basis of the conventional wisdom (i.e., mostly uninformed prejudice), the whole point of the scientific method is to check things out for ourselves — especially when the cost of doing so is modest and the potential rewards are great.

By tracing the development of what we now call the «scientific method» — an approach, developed over centuries, that emphasizes experiments and observations rather than reasoning from first principles — he makes the argument that science, unlike other ways of interpreting the world around us, can offer true progress.

Dr. Kuebler chose to publish his method in a video format because of its capacity to communicate scientific procedures better than text.

But perhaps his greatest contribution — greater even than his explanations of Darwinism — is his steadfast explanation - cum - celebration of the scientific method as civilization's most powerful tool for arriving at truth.

Twice mayor of Cali, a city of now more than two million people in Colombia, Guerrero Velasco was in a position to bring a measure of scientific method to governance.

With more than 1,100 free projects, Science Buddies has projects for every student, and the Project Guide helps supplement and guide classroom instruction related to the Scientific Method, Engineering Design Process, or individual steps of doing a science project.

who understands the scientific method much better than 99.99 % of my critics».

Now, many people will argue that broscience works, and that it works better than methods based on scientific principles.

Clinical psychologist and marriage counsellor, Dr Neil Clark Warren, has spent more than 35 years applying scientific methods to understand what makes couples happy in their relationships.

Various on - line dating sites claim that their methods for pairing individuals produce more frequent, higher quality, or longer lasting marriages, but the evidence underlying the claims to date has not met conventional standards of scientific evidence including: (i) sufficient methodological details to permit independent replication; (ii) open and shared data to permit a verification of analyses; (iii) the presentation of evidence through peer - reviewed journals rather than through Internet postings and blogs; (iv) data collection free of artifacts, such as expectancy effects, placebo effects, and confirmatory biases by investigators; and (v) randomized clinical trials (3, 9).

Rather than proposing matches based solely on the results of questionnaires and personality tests, sites such as ScientificMatch and GenePartner are experimenting with «scientific» matching methods.

The resource goes much deeper than the standard «PHEOC» model of the scientific method by emphasizing peer review, the testing of ideas, a science flowchart and «what is science?»

The open - minded person is willing to defer to impartial investigations rather than to his own predilections... Scientific method is attunement to the world, not to ourselves