It's not big realization stuff, it's
empirical observation followed by a conclusion, which is different.
Not exact matches
Unlike the indestructibility of the past which
follows logically from the law of contradiction, this «fading of the past» is the result of
empirical observation.
I have made an
observation that is not
empirical: when a team has the # 1 pick, the improvement they exhibit in the
following season is not huge.
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.
MW makes the
following additional and reasonable
observation in dismissing Ammann and Wahl's objection to
empirical AR1 coefficients: