Sentences with phrase «expert judgment does»

«There is little or no evidence of cases in which expert judgment does better than intelligently constructed formulas,» Kahneman said.

Not exact matches

And just as Emily, the woman mentioned in the blog post, experienced, rather than getting good guidance from the experts, parents end up insecure about their own capabilities, simply forgetting about the importance of their own judgment or even feeling guilty for having ideas and feelings that don't seem to match their noble motives.

Unlike traditional halls of fame, this one does not rely on the subjective judgment of a small committee of experts.

When we asked low - income African American parents whose judgment they most respected on matters relating to their children's education, they did not cite authorities or experts.

Authorized by NAEP legislation and adopted by the National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB), the three achievement levels are determined by cut points based on the collective judgments of experts about what students should know and be able to do.

This is why «specific studies don't tell us what to do, even if they sometimes have large potential for informing expert judgment» (p. 138).

«Buy - in isn't here as a separate thing because expert judgment plays a part,» said Joanne Weiss, the department's Race to the Top director, noting that some states, for example, don't have teachers» unions.

«The high stock market levels did not, as so many imagine, represent the consensus judgment of experts who have carefully weighed the long - term evidence.

Jerry Taylor, an economist at the Cato Institute, also sharply criticized the scientists» statement, saying, «I do not believe that «the experts» in any field should be dictating climate policy because there are plenty of important value judgments built in to those policies, and experts, however defined, have no objectively better values than you or I.»

I remember reading this quote in which you refer to Taylor: «I do not believe that «the experts» in any field should be dictating climate policy because there are plenty of important value judgments built in to those policies and experts however defined have no objectively better values than you or I.» I thought about that statement all day.

I understand why you only went back to 1983, but based on your expert judgment and the analysis you have done, how far back in time would you expect the NATL and EPAC data to be reliable?

The scepticism that I advocate amounts only to this: (1) that when the experts are agreed, the opposite opinion can not be held to be certain; (2) that when they are not agreed, no opinion can be regarded as certain by a non-expert; and (3) that when they all hold that no sufficient grounds for a positive opinion exist, the ordinary man would do well to suspend his judgment.

'' if there is one, requires judgment; that's why NAS, Royal Society et al. don't do surveys but rather collect domain experts to do substantive analysies and deliberate when they issue «expert consensus» reports.»

The compendium of evidence and expert judgment is what IPCC is supposed to do.

The next thing I would do is recognize that experts tend to be too certain of their own judgments, so I would look to fund some technologies where there is no consensus that there are tractable research problems that would reduce critical barriers to widespread deployment, but for which the arguments of the naysayers appears not to be terribly compelling.

What does one use to calibrate an «expert judgment?»

First principles subgrid models simply don't exist and so your only other altermative is expert judgment, which is a euphamisn for prejudice.

It does require expert judgment, but it breaks the whole thing down into a number of smaller judgments that are more easily objectified.

There is no particularly objective way to combine all this, but it is far better to have the expert judgments made at the level of relatively unambiguous premises, and then combine these in some way, rather than doing the expert judgment at the level of the hypothesis, which is subject to all sorts of crazy mental models and biases especially if the hypothesis regards a complex system.

There were many different representations of uncertainty (e.g., a range in models versus an expert judgment) in the TAR, and the consensus RF bar chart did not generate a total RF or uncertainties for use in the subsequent IPCC Synthesis Report (IPCC, 2001b)(Chapters 2 and 7; Section 9.2).

Would you like some new and inexpensive ways to: prove that an ex-spouse can afford to pay child support, find a disgruntled former employee who knows where the skeletons are hidden, locate assets of a judgment debtor, serve process when you don't have a current address, identify an expert witness, find lost heirs, or uncover bias in potential jurors?

As in the UK, so too here that judgment by the responsible politician is not likely to be reviewed by the courts, even though our courts do have to decide when the administration of justice may suffer the same fate (but they are experts in the administration of justice in a way that they are not in the Honour of the Crown, aboriginal treaty compliance excepted...)

By granting summary judgment after denying a request to exclude, the lower court determined the expert testimony didn't constitute evidence.

However, the appellate court did hold the trial court incorrectly delegated the custody decision to the expert witness and delegated the trial court's responsibility to exercise independent judgment regarding the child's best interests.

The defendants then sought summary judgment saying Coote did not have a case without a medical expert.

[49] Although the plaintiff submits that Dr. Reebye should be limited in his report to «criticizing the methodology or the research or pointing out facts apparent from the records which the other examiners may have overlooked» based on Justice Savage's apparent reliance on C.N. Rail, supra, I do not take from Savage J.'s judgment that responsive opinions are invariably limited to «a critical analysis of the methodology of the opposing expert.»

The intent is not to eliminate lawyers, but to have high - priced, highly experienced lawyers do what only they can do — provide expert analysis, reasoned judgment, advocacy and other high level skills — and to distribute all other work to service providers who are positioned to provide the work most cost - effectively.

An expert needs to keep at the forefront of their mind that they need to continually ensure that their own bias about how something should be done does not cloud their judgment of what a reasonable surgeon might do.

Most experts on the panel said they didn't see the decision as a «particularly earth - shattering judgment.»

The article in the NY Post called the handsets «useless», citing law enforcement officials that said things like, «Nobody purchases 36,000 phones based on the judgment of one person», and, «I don't care if you're Jesus f — king Christ, you get a panel of experts.»

FAMILY LAW — CHILDREN — Best interests — Where both parents seek sole parental responsibility and for the child to live with them — Where the respondent mother believes the child would settle down and accept the arrangement if the court ordered for the child to spend no time with applicant father — Where the court has a statutory mandate to make parenting orders with the child's best interests as the paramount concern — Where there is little doubt that the child would benefit from having a meaningful relationship with both parents — Where the child's clear views that he does not want to spend time with the respondent mother should be given significant weight in the circumstances — Where the child is of an age, maturity and intelligence to have principally formed his own rationally based views — Where the court is satisfied that it is in the child's best interests for the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility to be rebutted — Where the respondent father is to have sole parental responsibility and the child is to live with him — Where the applicant mother is permitted to attend certain school and sporting events of the child — Where the child should be able to instigate contact with the respondent mother as he considers appropriate to his needs and circumstances — Where the orders made are least likely to lead to the institution of further proceedings in relation to the child — Where the child is to have the outcome of these proceedings, the effect of the orders and the reasons for judgment explained to him by an expert as soon as reasonably practical.

[102a] To the extent his «expertise» is not in fact grounded in science, the MHP deflects serious criticism of and inquiry into that reality by posturing as if it does not matter anyway because somehow he is the «expert» of ordinary life too — educated, visionary, sophisticated, and broad - minded — justifying the substitution of his judgment over that of presumably provincial and flawed ordinary others, and the provision of his «services» for «therapeutic jurisprudence» to «families».