Sentences with phrase «change theory in»

Commenting on criticism of the Lavoisier Group by Clive Hamilton, the Cooler Heads Coalition notes that «Hamilton accuses the Lavoisier Group of painting the UN's global warming negotiations as «an elaborate conspiracy in which hundreds of climate scientists have twisted their results to support the climate change theory in order to protect their research funding» and adds, «Sounds plausible to us.»

Not exact matches

Other factors that have changed the nature of HRM in recent years include new management and operational theories like Total Quality Management (TQM), rapidly changing demographics, and changes in health insurance and federal and state employment legislation.

In this way, knowledge, experience and theory have limitations and can be deterrents to seizing and keeping up with unexpected changes arisng from the present arrangement.

At the intersection of cloud computing and energy conservation, the field excites both tech geeks and climate - change warriors alike, but much of it remains in the theory stage.

In 2017, the California cities of San Francisco, Oakland, Santa Cruz, and Imperial Beach, as well as Santa Cruz county, Marin County, and San Mateo County attempted to sue oil majors over climate change damages, citing a theory called «public nuisance.»

He has a theory about why the markets swooned: «Necessary changes in the stance of monetary policy removed the complacent assumption that «all bad news is good news» (because it brought renewed stimulus) that many felt underpinned markets.»

In theory, you could hold an individual bond to maturity and never lose any money even though the market value of the bond may fluctuate based on changing interest rates and other factors (but you could still lose out to inflation over time).

It can, in theory, do the monitoring and cajoling and proxy - fighting work to actually force changes in management.

However, the theory has its detractors, who believe the market overreacts to economic changes, resulting in stocks becoming overpriced or underpriced, and they have their own historical data to back it up.

One theory is that big, structural changes in trade and technology have permanently lowered the rate of price growth.

In this book, leading US scholar and activist Chuck Collins succinctly diagnoses the causes and drivers of rampant inequality, and demolishes simplistic theories that hold that current inequalities are primarily the result of technological change and globalization or differences in meriIn this book, leading US scholar and activist Chuck Collins succinctly diagnoses the causes and drivers of rampant inequality, and demolishes simplistic theories that hold that current inequalities are primarily the result of technological change and globalization or differences in meriin merit.

In theory, there could be appetite in a number of liberal - dominated states, from New Jersey to Connecticut to Hawaii to New York (where Republicans control the State Senate, but only with the consent of a dissident faction of Democrats who might back this changeIn theory, there could be appetite in a number of liberal - dominated states, from New Jersey to Connecticut to Hawaii to New York (where Republicans control the State Senate, but only with the consent of a dissident faction of Democrats who might back this changein a number of liberal - dominated states, from New Jersey to Connecticut to Hawaii to New York (where Republicans control the State Senate, but only with the consent of a dissident faction of Democrats who might back this change).

The theory behind it is simple: If Facebook has experimented on its users to find new and exciting ways to get us to use it in the way they'd prefer, we should also feel free to experiment on Facebook, and see if those experiments change how we think about what we share with one of the biggest repositories of human data in history.

In its original and most basic form it held that the general price level would change in direct proportion to the change in the supply of money, but to get around the problem that what was observed didn't match this theory it was subsequently «enhanced» by adding a fudge factor called «velocity»In its original and most basic form it held that the general price level would change in direct proportion to the change in the supply of money, but to get around the problem that what was observed didn't match this theory it was subsequently «enhanced» by adding a fudge factor called «velocity»in direct proportion to the change in the supply of money, but to get around the problem that what was observed didn't match this theory it was subsequently «enhanced» by adding a fudge factor called «velocity»in the supply of money, but to get around the problem that what was observed didn't match this theory it was subsequently «enhanced» by adding a fudge factor called «velocity».

Although in theory they could flip flop over time and change to interest distributions.

The mechanism behind the theory is that an increased volume without significant price change is followed by an up or downward jump in price.

I think those who oppose the theory of evolution, oppose evolution in alll forms — they fear change and want to remain with ideas of the past.

Even though the idea sounded great in theory, there was no telling how two control freaks would handle writing songs together (fans often joke that Saves The Day should change their name to «The Chris Conley Show»).

He explained his findings in nontechnical terms in Slate magazine: «Although doubt will always remain about what causes a change in social custom, the technology - shock theory does fit the facts.

This may come as a shock to you — BUT - evolution could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in court — if it is a «Law» of science and not a theory explain to me why Scientist in the same field have differing opinions theory has undergone massive changes since the 1850's when Darwin first came up with the THEORY — there are a lot of interesting similarities to true science which makes it sound so plausible, but it should sound good — After all the top scientist / humanists in the world promote it and they are all prettytheory explain to me why Scientist in the same field have differing opinions theory has undergone massive changes since the 1850's when Darwin first came up with the THEORY — there are a lot of interesting similarities to true science which makes it sound so plausible, but it should sound good — After all the top scientist / humanists in the world promote it and they are all prettytheory has undergone massive changes since the 1850's when Darwin first came up with the THEORY — there are a lot of interesting similarities to true science which makes it sound so plausible, but it should sound good — After all the top scientist / humanists in the world promote it and they are all prettyTHEORY — there are a lot of interesting similarities to true science which makes it sound so plausible, but it should sound good — After all the top scientist / humanists in the world promote it and they are all pretty smart

southerneyes44, you wrote «Germany doesn't teach about him» in regards to Hitler That's a ludicrous assertion as is «Theories in science change with the newspaper.»

Or i could point out that the big bang is the biggest joke ever told... That even the top physicists can't figure out how their own theory could work, not to mention the fact that for it to work they would need for the Universe to break the fundamental laws we understand as true since the beginning i.e. (No matter in the Universe can be created nor destroyed, you can only change it's state (solid to liquid, liquid to gas etc.).

This is backwards from the evolutionary theory of natural selection, which states that birds adapt and change in order to survive better in their environment.

Darwin's theory suggests that millions of generations later the changes will result in new species.

Since no one has yet to SEE an atom, the idea of the structure of the atom can only be inferred by experimental evidence — yet I see no Republican trying to stop teaching the structure of the atom in school — oh that's right, its because major corporations and industries rely on this science (pharm, weapons manufacturers etc etc) whereas the theory of evolution is merely think piece of scientists on how life on Earth changes over time.

The assumption of an anisotropy of time, along with the «momentariness» of change in spite of the epochal nature of moments, aligns the theory with microgenetic concepts.

You said, «But your theory requires that we believe in two coincidences: first, that it just happens that their life changes, and second, that is just happens to occur right after the person asks God for help.»

Besides, since the set of experiences changes (e.g. because of new scientific theories), and because it is difficult to check if, in fact, every experience confirms a given truth (system), it is better to say that adequacy and necessity (or apriority) are ideals.

The timing of what you post today goes with the section talking about «he will come again to judge the living and the dead» which is where I would guess that there'd be that change in the axis on your theory from things understood of Jesus to things understood of the Holy Spirit.

Cobb sketches a process theory about historical change and historical movement, grounded in Whitehead's notion of «living historic routes.»

However, to explain the origin of DNA as the mechanism of inheritance, evolutionary theory requires that hundreds of millions of small changes must be retained for thousands upon thousands of generations without producing any survival advantage until some point in the dim and distant future when, lo and behold, they suddenly start working together.

Such a Christianisation would not discredit all theories or change all work habits in domains generally considered to be non-religious.

A male psychoanalyst could work with women throughout his professional career, adjusting his theory to his practice, without coming to see that Freud's fundamental view of the male — female relation is in need of radical change.

During the debate over «biblical inerrancy» that raged among evangelicalism for several years in the late 1970s, I remember someone observing that Harold Lindsell's 1976 book, The Battle for the Bible, which pretty much got that debate going, was more a theory of institutional change than it was about theology as such.

Thomas Kuhn's work on paradigm shifts in the history of science presents the idea that changes or increases in our understanding not only fill out gaps in previous knowledge, but at times bring about a reorganisation of the structure of the theories or paradigms by which previous ideas were organised and understood.

So - called «subjective» theories see the cross as a revelation of God's love which brings about an inner change in the believer.

Berger has subsequently and substantively changed his thinking about religion and secularization, but the theory set forth in that book continues to have enormous influence on the discussion of these questions.

For example, he said, look at the Buddhist theory of impermanence, the idea that the physical world is changing by the second, which was later proved by quantum physics in the movement of atoms.

This led James to the theory that the stream of consciousness, and time itself, must come in discrete durational units which in themselves do not involve change.

As we have seen, one implication of this theory is that the basic durational units of time do not change in their own constitutions.

All the theory of evolution says is that life forms adapt to changes in the environment over time; that there are global changes in the gene pool of a given population of animals over time.

Evolution was not correctly taught if you believe that it is a belief or a mere theory in the colloquial sense, that it unnecessarily complicates the world, and that understanding how organisms change over time is not crucial for environmental policy, agriculture and biomedical research.

However, even if they were all creationist it would not change the fact that evolution is one of the most supported theories in all of science.

This is a necessary consequence of this theory, since the measurement of time is only possible if there is some change of state taking place, whether this change is in the process being measured or in the instrument of measurement itself.

Lentricchia, whose earlier work earned him the epithet «the Dirty Harry of literary theory, is the author of Criticism and Social Change (1983), which urges us to regard all literature as «the most devious of rhetorical discourses (writing with political designs upon us all), either in opposition to or in complicity with the power in place.»

One might say that just as nuclear war has made of the whole planet a potential battlefield, thus raising new questions about war itself, so, too, has modern advertising made of the whole planet an actual constant marketplace, thus provoking radical changes in the practice and theory of human intercourse.

The cell theory of organisms was a change in principle, not merely in degree, compared to all ancient thought.

Because of the cultural changes of modernity, however, the just war tradition has been carried, developed, and applied not as a single cultural consensus but as distinct streams in Catholic canon law and theology, Protestant religious thought, secular philosophy, international law, military theory and practice, and the experience of statecraft.

The theory is beautifully consistent with what is observed in the natural world though, and it is possible to observe species, including humans, continue to evolve in response to changing environmental pressures.

At the same time, he rejects those theories, «more or less tinged with behaviouristic psychology,» which assume» that human nature has no dynamism of its own and that psychological changes are to be understood in terms of the development of new «habits» as an adaptation to new cultural patterns.»