Sentences with phrase «consensus opinions of experts»

The cognitive principles of learning are based on reports from (a) the National Academy of Sciences, 1 (b) a practice guide for teachers by the Institute of Education Sciences in the U.S. Department of Education on Organizing Instruction and Study to Improve Student Learning, 2 (c) and a joint initiative between the Association of Psychological Sciences and the American Psychological Association on Lifelong Learning at Work and at Home.3 The recommendations here reflect the wisdom of these reports, which are based on scientific evidence, rather than being consensus opinions of experts.

When some politicians try to sway public opinion, they employ the tricks of the debating chamber: cherry - picking data, ignoring the consensus opinions of experts, adept use of a sneer or a misplaced comparison, reliance on the power of rhetoric rather than argument.

Not exact matches

That was the consensus opinion of four wine industry experts — W.R. Tish of Beverage Media Group, David Ransom of The Tasting Panel and The SOMM Journal, Gregg Glaser of Modern Distillery Age, and Felicity Carter of Meininger's Wine Business International — who recently gathered for a media panel at the 2016 USA Trade Testing Conference.

I don't think there's a consensus here, or that any study has been done that quantifies the opinions of «experts».

«Among political science scholars» I don't think there's a consensus here, or that any study has been done that quantifies the opinions of «experts».

The article is a consensus report with a balanced analysis from experts with diverse opinions about the value of cannabis as a pain treatment.

Dr. Talwalkar notes that up to 80 percent of recommendations from most guidelines are supported by evidence from non-randomized studies or expert consensus opinion, making conflict of interest disclosure crucial.

However, instead of consensus, a new study by an interdisciplinary research team at ETH Zurich (Switzerland) of psychologists and plant biologists found a wide range of different opinions among scientific experts about how to describe invasive plant species, and how severe their effects on the environment are.

The NRC convenes panels of outside experts who volunteer their time to provide consensus opinions on issues of policy significance.

The U.S. News & World Report rankings compare cars on the basis of safety, reliability and a consensus of industry experts» opinions, along with value — which is measured by a combination of a vehicle's five - year total cost of ownership and the average price paid for the vehicle at the time the awards are published.

A survey of gurus by Business Insider resulted in a consensus forecast of 1,949 for the S&P 500 by the end of 2014: the index closed the year at 2,060, higher than all but one expert's opinion.

Consensus isn't proof, but when one must choose between an opinion shared by an overwhelming majority of experts and one held by but a few (about a field in which we lack expertise of our own), consensus is a very useful means to assess the two choices.

On this topic, Policymakers of the last 30 years have taken the «Do Nothing» alternative based on a «whopping» 3 - 10 % consensus of expert opinion.

quote: «Despite the 97 % expert consensus on human - caused global warming supported by peer - reviewed research, expert opinion, the IPCC reports, and National Academies of Science and other scientific organizations from around the world, a large segment of the population remains unconvinced on the issue.»

Now, as to the meaning of such a strong scientific consensus - that's important because laypeople (quite wisely) will take expert opinions into consideration when deciding public policy.

When the networks did include scientists with opinions outside of the «consensus» the media embrace so much, the reports either disrespectful the experts or attempted to undermine their position.

Note that while we encourage deferring to experts in any specific domain, due to people's intuitive tendency to have excessive confidence in their own opinions and underestimate the value of expert opinions, we consider going against expert opinion a violation of the pledge only in the case of a clear scientific consensus.

For example, the constant refrain about how «the consensus» was wrong about plate tectonics is useful for «skeptics» to exploit - and then argue that the existence of a «consensus» on climate change isn't meaningful - when they don't also consider just how pervasively we all trust the product of scientists» work, and by extension the power of shared opinion among experts, as we live our daily lives.

Infact Coby, there is hardly related to SCIENCE much of the supposition presented by the OPINION (related as a supposed consensus) «marketed» as «climate science» and the supposed «climate experts» too often present opinion that is disassociated from SOPINION (related as a supposed consensus) «marketed» as «climate science» and the supposed «climate experts» too often present opinion that is disassociated from Sopinion that is disassociated from SCIENCE.

He just cares about being properly aligned with the consensus opinion of the majority of the experts.

Surveys of the peer - reviewed scientific literature and the opinions of experts consistently show a 97 — 98 % consensus that humans are causing global warming.

The limits of experts consensus, how to optimized expert consensus, is one of the most important topics in social epistemology in my opinion.

Given that recognition of the expert consensus is a gateway belief that determines the public's attitudes toward climate policies, and given that informing people of the consensus demonstrably shifts their opinions, it is unsurprising that attempts continue to be made to deny the existence of this pervasive expert consensus.

My «belief» (more like general sense of how it works rather than a belief — I think that «belief» is too strong a word) is that absent hard proof otherwise, it isn't irrelevant that a «consensus» of expert opinion says that a certain interpretation is probably correct.

It is clear, based on the consensus opinion of most experts, including the EIA, that it is unrealistic to suggest that we can meet our future energy needs without fossil fuels.

On the other side of the coin, some actively engaged online «realists» exploit the ambiguity of the term «consensus» to translate a strong prevalence of shared opinions among climate science experts that continued and increasing aC02 emissions pose a potential risk, to give the public an impression that «CAGW» is «settled science.»

One after another the global warming experts rose to condemn me for questioning in public the conclusions of an IPCC report that had been compiled and endorsed as the consensus opinion of a large number of knowledgeable scientists.

In the end the balance of informed opinion or consensus of experts is closer to the truth and reality than any other opinion.

Integrity is an issue of particular importance at the science - policy interface, particularly when the scientific case is represented by a consensus that is largely based on expert opinion.

So climate change is one area where I am content to defer to the consensus of expert opinion.

Look at other consensus objections: as with creationism, anti-vaccines, the entire tobacco industry campaign, ozone, acid rain, and now anthropogenic global warming - a repeating pattern of minority opinions trying to convince the public that the experts are not in agreement (when they actually are).

It is obviously true that the existence of an expert consensus on any scientific theory does not constitute any kind of logical proof that that particular opinion is correct.

From my post on why consensus matters in climate science to my follow up on why blogging is not science, it's common for climate skeptic commenters to claim that any reference to the majority of expert scientific opinion on climate change is simply an «appeal to authority».

Counsel need to present the expert evidence in ways that allow adjudicators to better assess when an expert is basing an opinion on a set of facts or principles on which there is a strong consensus and when the expert is expressing a minority or dissenting opinion that is not widely supported.

The study found that, when participants were given a written comment from an expert on each side of the question, in addition to the raw numbers, they had much more difficulty distinguishing between the high - consensus and low - consensus opinions.

In personal injury lawsuits, «consensus reporting» refers to when a single expert witness summarizes the opinions of other experts and delivers the findings to the court in the form of an executive summary.

When patients make claims of negligence the process of discovering whether negligence occurred requires investigating medical records, interviewing the involved parties (through sworn depositions), finding experts, sorting out conflicts between the opinions of experts, reinvestigating the records and testimony as new insights are uncovered and then reaching some kind of consensus, if possible, about what actually occurred and whether those facts meet the definition of legal negligence.