Sentences with phrase «accepted conclusions when»

Abandon or modify previously accepted conclusions when confronted with more complete or reliable experimental or observational evidence.

In other words, the fallacy of equivocation occurs when in the course of an argument the meanings of an ambiguous word or phrase are traded unfairly to get us to accept the conclusion when in fact we shouldn't.

Not exact matches

The Basingers» conclusion «that even when starting with classical premises one still ends up with process - like conclusions concerning divine power» (PS 11:23) would seem to apply even more thoroughly than they realized, for it would seem that the classical theist would have to accept the view that God can not create without limiting his power.2

We are afraid that our valid, limited, friendly criticism, when voiced, will help prepare people psychologically to accept the conclusions offered at the savage extreme.

It attempts to enforce a closed system of thought, that must reject conflicting claims regardless of which is the more logical conclusion — if it simply accepted evidence when it was due, it would lose all credibility, because the «word of God» can not be considered fallible.

It is easy to arrive at a conclusion when you are watching from afar — and that leads to mistakes of judgement — I accept that, but I miss the wonderful free flowing football we were so privileged to see for so many years, and altho there is hope that when Auba, Mihki and LaCaz get more time to play together that things will improve, but at the moment I can not help but feel all is not well in the camp.

I can be going along my merry self - accepting way, when a moment of social anxiety, a rejection or even just a hard morning, will trigger a full - force flood of poison and the conclusion is always this: I am so ugly that I don't deserve to be alive.

The increasingly omnipresent actor is some way from «Breaking Bad,» a broken, grizzled failure of a man, always aware of the price he pays for running with the dicier members of society, and grudgingly, heartbreakingly accepting of the inevitable conclusion to his lifestyle when it comes.

Intellectual honesty always admits when it stacks the evidence in favor of a preferred conclusion, and always allows for skepticism of accepted conclusions.

Instead of offering proof, it simply asserts the conclusion in another form, thereby inviting the listener to accept it as settled when, in fact, it has not been settled.

http://www.intuitor.com/statistics/SimpsonsParadox.html Simpsons's Paradox — When Big Data Sets Go Bad It's a well accepted rule of thumb that the larger the data set, the more reliable the conclusions drawn.

Contrarians start demanding «definitive proof» when they're moving the goal - posts in order to avoid accepting evidence - based conclusions that are inconvenient for their position.

What I find most surprising about the paper on my re-read and those who seem to have little problem accepting or at least finding no weaknesses of the indirect methodology used to make some rather far reaching conclusions is not that papers such as this one can get published, but the authoritative nature these articles seem to take on and particularly so when they are referenced in the IPCC reports.

It will warm my heart when I (will soon) see the scientific community accept the conclusions driven by the data, no matter what those may be.

Science is only useful when it asks the right questions, openly tests hypothetical models with honesty and integrity and accepts the conclusion with the understanding that «not false» is not the same «true».

On the first point, it is now apparently perceived as «bad» when scientists come to a conclusion that is robust enough to be well accepted by the majority.

Stated differently, the Supreme Court is not free to accept without analysis the conclusions that state courts and state law proclaim with respect to the boundaries of property rights or the limitations thereof when the decision on those questions implicates or undercuts important federal constitutional issues.