«
Because initial observations showed Arc accumulating at the synapses during learning, researchers thought that Arc's presence at these synapses was driving the formation of long - lasting memories.»
Not exact matches
Jeff, I agree with your
initial observation... and I guess for me this is also kind of the point in that, at some stage (hopefully), we are able to evaluate in a different way
because we also become aware of all (or at least some!)
Evolution is a legitimate theory
because the
initial idea came from scientific
observation.
If there is a discrepancy between simulation and
observations, it might be (partly)
because of errors in the forcings or
initial conditions or in some other aspect of the experimental design.
The
initial picture presented by Marvel et al (founded on incorrect Fi value for CO2) was that the WMGHG results were basically in line with CO2 - only response, and the historical run was a low outlier — giving rise to the paper's argument that
observation - derived TCR values would be biased low
because of this «accident of history».
This can be countered with the
observation that if enough
initial parameters and their influences were known, the result would consistently reproduce actual temperatures
because it would consider solar and magnetic and GCR influences properly.