Sentences with phrase «as a probability argument»

Harold Varmus: I think the way to think about this is, is as a probability argument.

Not exact matches

Appealing to confirmation theory and employing Bayes's Theorem of Probability Calculus, he has developed a cumulative - case argument for God's existence that he claims inductively justifies the existence of God as the best explanation for a wide variety of well - known data.

One may indeed be entirely without them; probably more than one of you here present is without them in any marked degree; but if you do have them, and have them at all strongly, the probability is that you can not help regarding them as genuine perceptions of truth, as revelations of a kind of reality which no adverse argument, however unanswerable by you in words, can expel from your belief.

What the argument by probability does is to reflect on the «fine - tunedness» of a universe in which life can exist, reflects on the chance of life occurring through purely random events, and concludes that the chance of life coming into existence through purely random forces of nature is so infinitesimally small as to be almost non-existent.

On the balance of probabilities alone, the weight of evidence of climate change as being real (Person B) far out - weighs the argument / evidence put forth by person A.

Hansen's argument is that without global warming, the probability of the Moscow and Texas and Oklahoma heat waves being so hot is so small, that it's safe to say that global warming was a contributing factor - that they would not have been as blisteringly hot in the absence of global warming.

«Lindzen picks one value at the outer edge of the probability distribution function and builds his entire argument on that (rather improbable) value as if it's highly certain» Okay, I see where you're coming from.

The situation as I see it is opposite: Mainstream science acknowledges there is a large uncertainty in the net aerosol forcing, whereas Lindzen picks onevalue at the outer edge of the probability distribution function and builds his entire argument on that (rather improbable) value as if it's highly certain: His argument is implicitly built on high confidence / certainty that aerosol forcing is very low.

Your opponent will always be trying to pick holes in your argument to tip the balance of probabilities in their favour, so it is important that the expert witnesses testify regarding their expertise and do not provide an opinion that could be classed as conjecture.