Sentences with phrase «convincing evidence about»

Because it is difficult to assess when a criminal career is «finished,» convincing evidence about the duration of criminal careers is sparse.

Instead, it is possible for your child to make a full and fair recovery if you and your attorney present other convincing evidence about what happened to cause your child's injuries.

In the process, it provides convincing evidence about an important question concerning cognition: how we form beliefs.»

The most convincing evidence about presidential election years for Evans is that in 18 of the last 22, the S&P 500 indexhas had a positive return for the year and has posted an average return of 11 percent in those years.

Not exact matches

In one case, a borrower's testimony about her mental impairment, including evidence that she received Social Security benefits, was enough to convince the court of undue hardship.

Rudolph W. Giuliani's media blitz to convince the public that neither Donald Trump nor his lawyer had violated the law by paying a porn star to keep quiet about an alleged affair might have backfired, giving investigators new leads to chase and new evidence of potential crimes, legal analysts said.

Funny that you find the issues with interstellar travel and just anectodes as evidence is not enough to convince you, yet anectodes and even more outrageous claims and you are convinced about Jesus / God.

Even if you sum up that evidence and are convinced it means god exists it says nothing about who or what god is.

It is common for people to say that there is much about the resurrection of Jesus that they do not profess to understand, but that the evidence makes it clear that something of a unique and miraculous order occurred, which had the effect of leaving the tomb of Jesus empty, and of convincing the disciples that Jesus was alive in some real sense.

This really isn't about something that could be proven through scientific experiments, so what it takes to convince you isn't about «evidence» in the scientific sense.

Some of the former are beginning to realize that Francis does not have the ability to alter divine truth to accommodate fashionable notions about sex and gender — while many conservatives have convinced themselves that Francis is a dangerous radical, despite clear evidence to the contrary.

But there is rather convincing evidence that Ezra's monarch is Artaxerxes II (404 - 358), and that Ezra began his work in Jerusalem about 397 — «the seventh year of Artaxerxes» (7:7).

With such a wealth of delicious meat free grub around these days — not to mention the growing body of scientific evidence about the unhealthiness of eating meat — it's a wonder anyone needs convincing.

And for those of us that are not entirely convinced by Arsene Wenger's vague words about not being able to find the right player available, there is today some evidence that he did at least try.

Making it hurt: The strategy of risk The irony, of course, is that individuals and organizations so determined to convince women to breastfeed because of evidence - based claims about its health effects are themselves choosing a breastfeeding promotion approach that is not based on actual evidence.

Personally, I find it rather ironic that you're lecturing the blog author on the rigor of language, when, faced with the need to support the claims made by a documentary that has faced absolutely no real standards of intellectual rigor or merit (the kind of evidence you apparently find convincing), you have so far managed to produce a study with a sample size too small to conclude anything, a review paper that basically summarized well known connections between vaginal and amniotic flora and poor outcomes in labor and birth before attempting to rescue what would have been just another OB review article with a few attention grabbing sentences about long term health implications, and a review article published in a trash journal.

There must be some little tidbit of evidence somewhere that convinced everyone to start talking about it.

Now they have some good news about the herpes virus family: Ironically named viral immunologist Herbert Virgin from Washington University School of Medicine has come up with some pretty convincing evidence that infection with two other members of the herpes virus family — the Epstein - Barr virus, which causes mononucleosis, and the relatively harmless cytomegalovirus — can actually protect a person from a range of bacterial infections.

4) The evidence about the medieval warming period and little ice age are convincing and supported by different methods.

Our family has started all meat diet about 2 - 3 weeks ago (we were paleo before) and I'm struggling to convince other people that what we are doing is not harmful: i need to convince my mum who is very vocal about it and thinks i'm harming my children, her grandchildren and also i need to provide some evidence for a childminder who is very concerned about my son she is looking 2 days a week and asked me for a written approval from our GP (we are in UK).

Documentary about the Ukraine filmmaker who was sentenced to 20 years in a Siberian prison despite the absence of convincing evidence and one of the witnesses recanting his testimony.

Although the prosecutor had convinced a jury to sentence the pair to death based on questionable circumstantial evidence, the nagging doubts about their guilt or innocence which had turned the case into something of a cause celebre have remained unresolved to this very day.

Conviction is basically about her struggle to do so including going to law school and becoming a lawyer, and pursuing the forensic evidence that she is convinced will aid her case.

Roundtree) who finds a way to explain each of Corky's hijinks as examples of heroism, and the sticky realization that if the forged documents are convincing enough to get Corky into the FBI building and the FBI director's good graces, then what he needs to do is check the evidence against his father out of the evidence room, thus potentially ending the film about ten minutes into it.

Following an academic talking head's advice that «Physical evidence helps to preserve a memory» — and a less convincing authority's insistence that a dead person's soul lingers in their newly - vacated home for about eleven months after their death — the filmmakers take it upon themselves to turn their grandmother's house inside - out, the better to immortalize her through the spectral traces they log on camera.

How can we go about convincing schools, educators on the ground, to enact this change, to use evidence?

Most promising, TEAC's heavy emphasis on the obligation of teacher - education programs to produce convincing evidence in support of the claims they make about their own quality has the potential to enhance accountability in teacher education.

Changing the common sense beliefs of teachers about heterogeneous grouping effects on the learning of struggling students requires those providing leadership to bring relevant evidence to the attention of their colleagues in accessible and convincing ways, to encourage actual trials with heterogeneous groupings under conditions which include opportunities for practice, feedback and coaching and to help teachers generate «the kind of assessment information that will make the impact of tracking and detracking more visible» (Riehl, 2000).

In a persuasive essay, our essay writers define the idea and then convince the readers about the originality of the idea by giving concrete evidences about it.

As a cat owner, Amy Novotny never thought much about heartworms.But a few weeks ago Novotny, a 31 - year - old magazine editor who lives in south Orange County, was devastated to learn that her cat, Buster, has the dreaded parasites.A cat with heartworms?Until this year the veterinary community thought cats rarely contracted heartworms, which have long been a serious problem for dogs.Emerging evidence, however, has convinced veterinarians that cats also are susceptible to heartworms.

The interesting thing is to see that a.) None provide any credentials proving their methods are better; b.) they don't like the tone of the article — then again, a lot of people, when all they do is talk among those who only agree with them get offended when they run across someone that isn't in lock step with them; c.) they try to attack me personally, as a «hater», which is totally unfair and judgmental about someone whom they have never met; d.) can't point to any specific dogs with significant accomplishments that have been clicker trained — hunting, police, obedience, tracking, etc... and just finding a specimen or two isn't very convincing evidence... get enough dogs and sometimes you'll find the genius dog that almost trains itself; e.) there is no point by point refutation of what I've said, supported by third party evidence.

Second, the information collected about their ancestors should serve as convincing evidence that quality is present.

4) The evidence about the medieval warming period and little ice age are convincing and supported by different methods.

Is there any convincing evidence or analysis you see that says this is in any way about climate, particular, as distinct from the noted issues with mercury in rice and high smog levels and the like?

I think it's amusing / interesting that both sides are absolutely convinced about the «effect» of consensus messaging even though they lack evidence sufficient to actually prove anything about that.

It's not easy to convince 97 % of scientific experts about anything — that requires some powerful scientific evidence.

Rather than address feet's concerns, your response is a standard tu quoque («you too») fallacy combined with mindreading about some unspecified «plenty of others who will clearly not be convinced by any evidence whatsoever.»

So I've done just enough preliminary digging into those aspects to convince myself that the Robinson et al paper is at best incomplete in its presentation of evidence (for instance, this webpage about solar irradiance http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html), and in reality, deliberately misleading.

I ask that because I haven't seen evidence one way or the other that I think convincing — because I think that the uncertainties are too large in a number of ways (w / r / t to the range of sensitivity, w / r / t the massive unknowns about positive and negative externalities, w / r / t modeling future economies, etc..)

I'm very convinced that the physical process of global warming is continuing, which appears as a statistically significant increase of the global surface and tropospheric temperature anomaly over a time scale of about 20 years and longer and also as trends in other climate variables (e.g., global ocean heat content increase, Arctic and Antarctic ice decrease, mountain glacier decrease on average and others), and I don't see any scientific evidence according to which this trend has been broken, recently.

In addition, Michael Mann must prove by clear and convincing evidence that Mark Steyn knew the statement was false or had serious doubts about the truth of the statement.

I guess I would suggest two articles for this letter to the editor, «There is no proof» and «No past, no present» Peopel who flat out deny there is any evidence wo n`t be convinced but they should be pointed to the IPCC report, the most extensively reviewed scientific document in history, endorsed by just about every major relevant scientific body and major governmental science academy, including the US.

Overpeck: I agree w / Susan [Solomon] that we should try to put more in the bullet about «Subsequent evidence» -LSB-...] Need to convince readers that there really has been an increase in knowledge — more evidence.

I note that many are convinced, but they tend to be people who don't think critically about the evidence.

Arguably these kind of reports merely muddy the waters, entrench positions, demonstrate the paucity of clear evidence, and, far from convincing the public of the stainless character of those implicated, such inquiries just generate suspicion about the execution of the process, and alienate the public from the debate.

For me the most convincing piece of evidence that global warming has been contributing already to more and more intense weather related natural catastrophes is the fact that while we find a steep increase in the number of loss relevant weather events (about tripling in the last 30 years) we only find a slight increase in geophysical (earthquake, volcano, tsunami) events, which should not be affected by global warming.

The putative evidence that the present CO2 levels are higher than has ever been in the last 800,000 years is what convinced people that CO2 was something to worry about.

While the argument rumbles on for some, with Exxon now accepting the existance of man - made climate change, and with the climate skeptic's favorite scientist actually being a vocal climate action proponent, I'm ready to move on until someone shows me convincing evidence of this elaborate hoax I keep hearing about.

The survey to which you point as evidence says nothing about CO2 (those that are convinced the warming was primarily an urbanization or deforestation effect would also answer yes).

Bayesian logic of this sort underlies statements by ecologists, glaciologists and climate scientists who state, somewhat unconvincingly, «the more you learn about the evidence behind climate change, the more convinced you become that the change is real and accelerating».