For a scientist? Why not "in a scientist"?

Some of our contributors sometimes lose sight of the fact that they are writing for a person who is not a native speaker, and who is trying to extend his knowledge of the language.

Barry Crier said that explaining a joke is like dissecting a frog... no-one laughs, and the frog dies.

I.e. Setanta is a prick.

Is he any relation to Barry Cryer?

Quote:

Is he any relation to Barry Cryer?

Funnily enough, as I was waking up this morning (odd what you think about, isn't it) I realised I had spelled that name wrongly, and resolved to issue a correction. Well spotted.

Contrex, himself a prick, rarely misses an opportunity to accuse others of his own faults.

Finally, consider an objection to belief that cuts particularly sharply for a scientist. How can miracles be reconciled to a scientific worldview?

I repeat, I am only considering the meaning of the sentence here. It is clear that christian orthodoxy ("belief") is the source of the scientist's dilemma.

That is, the objection "cuts... sharply in a scientist."

oristarA wrote:

That is, the objection "cuts... sharply in a scientist."

I understand the context you're giving for this sentence. But what is your question about it?

How Can a Rational Person Believe in Miracles?

Finally, consider an objection to belief that cuts particularly sharply for a scientist. How can miracles be reconciled to a scientific worldview?

At first sight, it appears to say that "an objection against belief would hurt deeply a scientist".

oristarA wrote:

At first sight, it appears to say that "an objection against belief would hurt deeply a scientist".

Not to native English speakers. To them, the phrase implies that objections are tools scientists use, and that this particular objection is a particularly sharp tool. That's why the preposition is "for", not "in": the objection does something for scientists, not in them. And that's also why its sharp cutting is good: It reflects the utility of the tool for scientists. It does not reflect injury to their bodies, which would indeed be bad.

"Cuts" here means "hurts" although the injury is more emotional than physical.

"Her rejection of my affection cut me deeply."

Engineer has complicated the simple case:

Quote:

Engineer has complicated the simple case:

No he didn't. It's a metaphorical usage (and a fairly loose one, too) and metaphors can be stretched to amazing limits.
"Cuts" could have a myriad of meanings. And almost as with poetry, the reader supplies his own meaning. Often scientific writers with literary pretensions only serve to mess things up, or to confuse.