Sentences with phrase «hypothesis testing not»

Not exact matches

The book teaches you to treat your business ideas as hypotheses, and test them using an MVP, which is, the least amount necessary to prove if your idea has a market or not.

What are some ways that I can go about testing to see if that hypothesis is actually correct or not?»

Because it's not permanent, I think it allows us to just play and test out new marketing hypotheses.

Pure cold calling won't cut it, though — you have to use an experimental mindset that tests hypotheses with data, which in turn ensures that what you prove out is intentional, repeatable and (most importantly of all) scaleable.

Because it's so hard to test, the efficient market hypothesis is not universally accepted.

If it is not supported by the experiment, it must be modified to conform to the results of the test, or be replaced with a different hypothesis.

Science is about evidence and testing hypotheses, not blind belief without a shred of evidence.

The hypothesis that is inversely proportional to the evidence presented is the hypothesis that can be tested by repeatable experiments.in other words if you read a book cover to cover you can categorically deny that eastern mysticism is all powerful and the philosophies have mathematical inference to the derivative conclusion that one can not mistakenly ignore.

Untested hypotheses, what is the best method to test something, etc. are debated, but the science itself is not.

Don't allow religious philosophy to intrude into biology classrooms and texts, they say, for that is to soil the sacred precincts of science, which must be reserved for hypotheses that can be rigorously tested and confronted with data.

Dalahast, As I said, «Untested hypotheses, what is the best method to test something, etc. are debated, but the science itself is not.»

It does this, not by guess work, and certainly not by indulging personal preference or caprice, but by employing scientific methods of observation, analysis, hypothesis and verification, which are well tested in other fields of study.

I have a lot of faith in science, not in the unscientific assumption that atheists make that reality is purely mechanistic, but in the procedures of testing hypotheses, questioning assumptions, measuring results, replicating experiments, and in general debating and persuading based on actual evidence.

I have been struggling with this question for several years now, and while I am not ready to claim I have a «solution» (nothing but pride would make such a claim), I do have a theological hypothesis which will be tested against Scripture.

Scientists have hypotheses, they test them, they review the results, they cross check the results with independent tests, they then keep the hypotheses that are not disproven.

Scientists have lots of hypothesis about what might or might not have caused the Big Bang, but so far none of them have been tested.

The principle difference that most people don't understand though is that «scientific theory» means that it's a hypothesis that's been repeatedly tested and supported with multiple pieces of evidence through many different trials and approaches.

Your IDEA has not been tested nor proven and is simply an IDEA, not a hypothesis.

Unfortunately for creationists the concept is still a hypothesis since we haven't figured out a way to test the concept yet or find any solid evidence proving that it happened.

Creationism is not a theory, it isn't even a hypothesis, it can not be tested therefore it is invalid.

He thought there might be another side, but he wouldn't believe it until he tested his hypothesis.

Prolog is able to test whether or not a hypothesis, posed to a computer as a query, logically follows from a list of axioms (the program itself).

One can never test an individual hypothesis conclusively in a «crucial experiment»; for if a deduction is not confirmed experimentally, one can not be sure which one, from among the many assumptions on which the deduction was based, was in error.

In the very act of testing a hypothesis or gathering evidence, it is not possible to doubt or distrust the enterprise itself.

Fact: We do not yet know and can not control the variables necessary to test the hypothesis of «There is no god (s)».

You might not be aware, but the educational system teaches kids to think for themselves, ask questions, scrutinize the validity of an explanation or an authority figure, and use inductive and deductive reasoning as a part of a process to ask questions, analyze and test a hypothesis.

To test such a hypothesis science doesn't have the means to verify everything we would need to...

Rather than using the scientific method to test the hypothesis that torture doesn't work, we should consider whether or not a culture of torture belongs in the kind of society we want to build.

?!?!? You don't have a valid hypothesis because it can't be tested for verification or falsification..

Assuming a god hypothesis doesn't do us any good unless we can begin to query the universe about that hypothesis by measurement (testing smaller, supporting hypotheses and performing experiments).

Your hypothesis IS N'T EVEN VALID to begin with because IT CA N'T BE TESTED..

If we don't even have the slightest idea how many hypotheses there are to approach and try to figure out how to test, why assume any hypothesis at all?

There's countless alternative explanations that have not been ruled out AND we can't perform tests to know if the god hypothesis is correct..

He continues to deduce the consequences of premises in a logical way, but this is in order to test them as hypotheses, not to establish the truth of their consequences.

Since our main interest in this book is to demonstrate an intelligible approach to religion, we need not dwell long on such alternative hypotheses which in the nature of the case can not at present be tested.

So I've started testing my pectin - thickening hypothesis on other recipes (like homemade coconut yogurt and citrus curd)(and eventually — if I ever have a proper kitchen again — panna cotta and pots de créme), and hopefully I'll be able to share them with you sometime in the not so distant future.

When medical researchers test a hypothesis and their experiments produce no results, the scientific and medical research journals don't want to publish them because they prove nothing.

To test his hypothesis, Dr. Li and colleagues assessed information on 185 infants who died of SIDS and 312 other babies who did not die of SIDS.

I think there might be something to the c - section explanation... Although I have only one child so I can't test the hypothesis personally.

For motor development, we can not reject the null hypothesis, even though we found borderline significant trends towards lower scores on motor developmental tests both at 13 months, and at 5 years of age (balance score).

The examiners were not aware of information concerning infant feeding, nor of the hypotheses tested in the present study.

But not if they test the hypothesis by keeping their old caffeine and candy - spewing machine in place, sticking a «healthy» machine selling carrot sticks and fruit juice next door, and seeing which performs better, he points out.

Political philosophy is not a science; it does not offer testable hypotheses and it can not be tested against the world.

Here's an analogy: If you have a scientific hypothesis, you can't test it just by reading the literature all day.

Test hypotheses to see what we actually know and what we don't actually know.

I accept them as starting points for developing hypotheses that we can test, but I'm not happy with the answers we have now, either from science or from religion.»

Testing Jost's hypothesis wasn't what reproductive and developmental biologist Humphrey Yao and colleagues set out to do.

As I argued, to test evolutionary psychology's hypothesis, we need to look at physically abused children, not sexually abused children or children who were the victims of very broadly defined neglect.

Those are choices that males make, and you can't just exclude one half of the population from the data against which you're going to test your hypothesis.

«How can you test this hypothesis if you are not including any tetanuran in your analysis?»