Sentences with phrase «how wrong this method»

It is painfully obvious how wrong this method is if you are a value investor and like to buy things that are out of favor.

Not exact matches

The case method is the antithesis of how entrepreneurs build startups — it teaches pattern recognition tools for the wrong patterns — and therefore has limited value as an entrepreneurship teaching tool.

«To suggest we can't know how old the Earth is, then, is to deny the validity of these scientific methods altogether» - No it's to be open minded to the idea that we might be wrong, on the other hand to accept these dates without question or reservation is to accept current science without question.

This trend, along with the sheer un-Mourinhoness of this season, suggests that while his methods may be generally excellent, he doesn't quite know how to fix things when they go wrong.

Alfie Kohn had an interesting article in the NYT this past week on how parents can use discipline as a method of control and not as a way to teach right from wrong.

But many people don't know how the distances to astronomical objects can be measured and think there may be something wrong with the methods of the scientists, that perhaps all objects we see in the sky are no farther away than some thousand light years, and hence the YECs could be right anyway.

Early days for these methods but they could reveal new and fundamental things about how the HD mutation makes things go wrong in the brain.

UNDERSTAND HOW CANCER IS HEALED AND WHY: Cancer is probably only deadly if the wrong methods are used.

Now to me that sounds a little crazy because how can you know what is going on in the rest of my body by only look at my face (now this method isn't going to tell you everything that is wrong with your health, but it can help you out)?

They were our anointed protectors, after all, so if the proletariat agreed with their methods, how could those methods be wrong?

So most everyone in the system is happy to just plod along using outdated and totally wrong methods of doing most everything, because that's how they make the most money and are able to do the least amount of work.

If you use the wrong teaching method, your puppy will begin making decisions about how he wants you to fit into his life, and that's a recipe for conflict and behavior problems.

In «How to Right a Dog Gone Wrong,» Pam Dennison's first book on rehabilitating aggressive dogs, she outlined the training methods that she uses in her local New Jersey area.

If you use the wrong teaching method, your puppy will begin making decisions about how he wants YOU to fit into HIS life.

Jordan Ellenberg, author of How Not to Be Wrong: The Power of Mathematical Thinking, talks about what some folks think is the best method for boarding an airplane.

But in Issues, analysts have identified a more fundamental problem — the social cost of carbon dioxide is the wrong guide to follow — and they proposed an alternative method that better reflects what is known about long - term effects of climate change and how these effects should be valued by today's decision - makers.

AFAICT «everyone» knows that «Mann's methods are wrong», OTOH no one knows how to do it right.

If those methods give a widely different result, then it suggests that the underpinnings of the «approved» methods are wrong, no matter how authoritatively one may argue about how Bayesian methods should work.

Since we don't yet know how that last bump will shape up, their method is not wrong.

Zeke gave his demonstration of how Goddard's method gives wrong answers.

Any method to get some information from the distant past is bound to look bizarre or «manifestly» wrong at some level — and for «special» reasons, individual examples how to use the methods may fail.

If you come along saying that their estimation method is wrong, I'm going to ask how wrong it is.

And as a scientist if your hypothesis is that «their result isn't correct because they screwed up their data / used the wrong method for their data» how do you progress?

They also explain why previous results and analysis are wrong, providing clear demonstrations showing how the methods work.

You are not seriously arguing that you showed homogenization to be wrong without studying how homogenization methods work, but only on the basis of two numbers looking similar?