Scientists believe scientific results
because objective evidence confirms rather than denies an idea.
Not exact matches
But the optimism around supposedly
objective algorithms has been challenged in recent years by
evidence that some automated systems amplify bias
because they're trained on data reflecting historical inequities.
I reject your
evidence because it isn't in any way based on «neutral,
objective fact».
Dalahäst I can believe in love, compassion, forgiveness and hope
because I have
objective evidence that things things are real.
Unlike you, I don't have to ask anyone anything to know what a smart person thinks,
because there is plenty of
objective evidence suggesting I am one.
All you're doing is whining and making excuses
because you know your «
evidence» can't withstand
objective scrutiny.
That means I do not believe any of the god claims I have heard,
because there is never, ever, any hard, verifiable, logical,
objective evidence to support them.
Religion is illogical
because after thousands of years and many attempts to prove that any gods exist there is not one bit of verifiable, independent,
objective or factual
evidence to support the existence of any god.
objective morality, when used as «
evidence» of the existence of god is classic circular reasoning; «I believe in god
because of the existence of
objective morality and I believe in
objective morality
because I believe in god.
That, it seems to me, is itself a kind of cheating,
because it requires asserting» unscientifically» the secularist reading of the
evidence as if it were the
objective, scientific, indisputable one.
If it is
because you believe in an alleged supernatural being for which there is no independent,
objective, factual or verifiable
evidence, then clearly it is you who is mentally ill, delusional and / or a liar.
Hotairace, I don't expect you to see the abundant
evidence,
because sin has corrupted your mind and soul so much that you don't consider even yourself to be factual, verifiable,
objective, or independent.
It should be clear, Bergson argues, that the reason why the scientist stops at a certain point along the road of generalization and synthesis is
because beyond that point
objective evidence and sure reasoning do not permit us to advance.
I always find plenty of «
evidence» for extended breastfeeding but for some reason I have always been a little sceptical of it (and don't have the time, money or inclination to read the articles referenced)-- probably
because the sources are pro-extended breastfeeding and therefore less than
objective.
Nowadays, public policy analysts are keen on
evidence - based policy: instead of assuming that a policy will work here
because it worked somewhere else, analysts try to produce
objective evaluations by running randomised control trials.
The method used in the study is known as the Hirsch Index and while the study authors acknowledge factors such as there being high public interest leading to more studies of a particular illness, they believe that
because it is
objective and
evidence - based it will be a useful complement and guide to more traditional methods of risk assessment and can be used to produce a shortlist of pathogens for authorities to focus on.
If they did they would choose Whole Plant Foods without added oil...
BECAUSE THERE IS AMPLE
EVIDENCE FOR WFPB, People do not look at objective evidence to determine what to eat but instead look for people to give them a reason to stick with their current eatin
EVIDENCE FOR WFPB, People do not look at
objective evidence to determine what to eat but instead look for people to give them a reason to stick with their current eatin
evidence to determine what to eat but instead look for people to give them a reason to stick with their current eating style.
FDA, despite tremendous
evidence of the efficacy, does not approve probiotics as drugs
because of many
objective variables.
As any researcher can immediately note, such surveys have little usefulness as
objective evidence,
because they are based on subjective opinions that can change based on who is working in classrooms,
because survey designs can be flawed with leading questions yielding results favorable to the pollster, and
because survey designs can change drastically from year to year.
Video takes the angst out of evaluation
because it gives teachers and their observers a common,
objective piece of
evidence on which to base their conversation.
Richard Betts says: «The
evidence also suggests that even if «seepage» is real, at the very least this seepage has had no influence in watering - down UK public opinion and political action compared to other countries — and that possibly the opposite has occurred
because the public are more convinced by seeing scientists being
objective.»
The
objective Bayesian approach is trying to discount our prior knowledge and tell us only what the
evidence tells us, and the
evidence that we've obtained offers us no support for the hypothesis that the calendar date is 750 - 850,
because the experimental method used doesn't provide that information.
Due to the lack of a good explanation for this onset of cooling, an
objective scientist should select the fully formed theory A as more plausible unless good
evidence was forthcoming for the alternative half - theory B. Hansen, of course, already knows that CO2 sensitivity is high
because the heating half - cycle of the paleo data tells him so.
Because courts require that the government establish an evidential basis for its impugned action, a government will not simply be able to assert that its action achieves health care
objectives and meets the other section 1 requirements without furnishing
evidence.
This does not offend the parol
evidence rule
because the goal of considering the factual matrix is (at para 81) «to deepen the trial judge's understanding of the mutual and
objective intentions of the parties as expressed in the words of the contract.»
It's taught me to emphasize
objective performance, and to base my own work on facts,
evidence, and metrics — things that can't be easily dismissed just
because they come from a woman and don't fit into the paradigm that investors, boards, and startup peers are used to.