Sentences with phrase «by empirical observation»

(The fact is that the mechanism by which this insulation effect occurs is by radiation occurring in both directions, as can easily be verified by empirical observation.

For example, when I pointed out the evolutionary theory and AGW are fundamentally different because AGW is a postulate that has yet to be observed in the real world but evolutionary theory is based on — and supported by empirical observation — you respond by saying to me «Basically, your argument boils down to saying...».

Please note that the Null Hypothesis is a hypothesis which exists to be refuted by empirical observation.

The Report's assumptions are simply not supported by empirical observation of nature.

The scientific method demands that theories be tested by empirical observation.

Fifth, even if real scientific investigation (which doesn't stop with modeling but tests models by empirical observation) could tell us that, say, falling 50 % short of net zero «carbon» emissions would raise GAT by, say, 3 ° C and that that, in turn, would cause significant harms, that wouldn't tell us how we ought to respond.

Physics must always be justified by empirical observations, but very often the valid tests are much less obvious than non-scientists seem to think.

Some by model, some by empirical observations, and some a mix of both.

A hypothesis that can not be falsified by empirical observations, is not science.

Not exact matches

He is persuaded by Kant's argument that we can not infer divine designs or moral principles from empirical observation.

On the other hand, the concrete aspect of God is his dependent, related, and contingent actuality; and it, being entirely inaccessible to rational proof, can only be known by direct, empirical observation or «encounter.

It may conveniently be divided into the empirical knowledge obtained by observation and experience and the much more detailed knowledge that we have today.

a) empirical facts (often deliberately created by experiment and planned observation, as the term factum est implies)

Schweitzer's ethical mysticism begins with a reflective observation of the finite world («I am urge - to - life»), moves to an empirical generalization («in the midst of other wills - to - live»), is made cosmic by an intuitive insight, which is the completing or mystical element of thought («all is part of a cosmic or universal will - to - live»), and returns to the finite for experiential verification in ethical participation («Ethics alone can put me in true relationship with the universe by my serving it, cooperating with it; not by trying to understand it... It is through community of life, not community of thought, that I abide in harmony... [«The Ethics of Reverence for Life,» Christendom, Vol.

The overwhelming empirical observations are in favor of God while manmade rules of logic established by the Greeks favor their philosophies which resulted in the monument to the unknown god.

I do indeed stand on the distinction between a priori (or metaphysical) and empirical in the sense given this distinction by Popper, except that, whereas Popper defines empirical as «conceivably falsifiable by observation» and apparently limits observation to certain forms of human perception, I sometimes include divine perception (in Whitehead's language, God's physical prehensions).

Western culture may be compared to a lake fed by the stream of Hellenism, Christianity, science, and these contributions might offer an extremely valuable way of considering the conceptions of a life of reason, the principle of an ordered and intelligible world, the ideas of faith, of a personal God, of the absolute value of the human individual, the method of observation and experiment, and the conception of empirical laws, as well as the doctrines of equality and of the brotherhood of man.

That would be historically unique, and perhaps for that very reason historically false, for an invisible Christianity could be very much alive today, or one invisible by all orthodox and ecclesiastical criteria, but one nevertheless deeply alive in our depths, even if those depths are invisible to empirical observation.

But physicians in the empirical tradition, to which Aristotle was exposed by his physician father, learned how to predict the course of disease from observation.

Determining Empirical Stellar Masses and Radii Using Transits and Gaia Parallaxes as Illustrated by Spitzer Observations of KELT - 11b

We can confirm this by comparing the calculation to empirical observations.

It's not big realization stuff, it's empirical observation followed by a conclusion, which is different.

I look forward to more observations and empirical studies of connecting inquiring minds to engaging electronic content by interesting authors.

On the other hand, the alternate scenario — a non-zero «pre-eruption» aerosol burden — is both logically self - consistent, and in accord with empirical observations, as I showed by citing the Robock paper.

Miskolczi has taken this approach by writing yet another incoherent paper where inaccurate empirical observations and approximate properties of model calculations are put together claiming that the result is a new exact law of nature.

So, we can choose to believe a commenter on a political blog claiming people who understand that there is a broad, clear understanding of the primary driver of the observations are «alarmists», «climate cult ``, «duped doomsday climate cultist», «real deniers, of the science and empirical data»,» peddlers of CatastrophicAGW - by - CO2 ``,.

That's very nice but, as requested by Jim and me, please cite specific references to empirical evidence (i.e. data derived from actual physical observations or reproducible experimentation) supporting the Myhre et al. quantitative estimate on CO2 radiative forcing.

I am just reiterating the concept so brilliantly defined by Feyman that a hypothesis, no matter how elegant the theoretical derivation and no matter from whom it came, isn't really worth very much unless it can be validated by empirical evidence, such as actual physical observation or reproducible experimentation.

The premise that AGW is a potential serious threat has yet to be validated by empirical data derived from actual physical observations or reproducible experimentation.

My own perspective on this is that it would be a significant departure from earlier work by Trenberth if he really came with empirical evidence (i.e. data based on actual physical observations, rather than simply model simulations) to support his position.

b) the premise that AGW is the direct cause of recent severe weather events has also not been validated by empirical data based on physical observations or reproducible experimentation

a) the premise that AGW has been the principal cause of 20th century warming (and thus represents a serious potential threat) has not been validated by empirical data based on physical observations or reproducible experimentation

In the case of the CAGW claim (made by IPCC) there are no empirical data based on actual physical observations or reproducible experimentation to support this claim.

-- If a scientific claim is involved, check for empirical evidence to support this claim: is the claim supported by actual physical observations or reproducible experimentation?

It has been said that CAGW, as outlined by IPCC in its AR4 report, is impossible to falsify or corroborate with empirical scientific evidence from actual physical observations or reproducible experimentation.

This is only suggested by ice - core paleoclimate data which is ultimately uncheckable by direct empirical observation.

As others have noted, the IPCC Team has gone absolutely feral about Salby's research and the most recent paper by Dr Roy Spencer, at the University of Alabama (On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in Earth's Radiant Energy Balance), for one simple reason: both are based on empirical, undoctored satellite observations, which, depending on the measure required, now extend into the past by up to 32 years, i.e. long enough to begin evaluating real climate trends; whereas much of the Team's science in AR4 (2007) is based on primitive climate models generated from primitive and potentially unreliable land measurements and proxies, which have been «filtered» to achieve certain artificial realities (There are other more scathing descriptions of this process I won't use).

Because the models are not deterministic, multiple simulations are needed to compare with observations, and the number of simulations conducted by modeling centers are insufficient to create a pdf with a robust mean; hence bounding box approaches (assessing whether the range of the ensembles bounds the observations) are arguably a better way to establish empirical adequacy.

There are many «follow - up» arguments, but the key argument used by the rational skeptics of the IPCC CAGW premise is simply that it has not been corroborated by empirical scientific data, derived from actual physical observations and / or reproducible experimentation.

That time exists and has a direction is an empirical observation and, notably, is not something proven or even predicted by theory.

Aa = Ed, is not required by Miskolczi or derived by him; it is based on empirical observations:

When the Figure 9.20 is interpreted solely as a summary of analyses that tell, what we have learned from empirical observations combined with modeling needed in its interpretation, the information is given by the values of the curves at each value of S relative to the values of the same curve at other values of S.

First of all, it is not supported by empirical data derived from real - time physical observations or reproducible experimentation, as you have suggested should be done.

If the premise is not supported by empirical evidence, such as from real - time physical observations or reproducible experimentation, it remains an uncorroborated hypothesis.

This hypothesis has yet to be validated by empirical data based on actual physical observations or reproducible experimentation and has not yet successfully withstood any attempts at falsification, so (unlike your example of «evolution») remains an uncorroborated hypothesis, rather than «reliable scientific knowledge» (or, even less, «settled science», despite what Gavin has stated in the past).

The uncertainties in global climate models vs empirical observations are equally great ranging from 10 C by 2100!

We can confirm this by comparing the calculation to empirical observations.