Sentences with phrase «known as the explanation»

Prior studies have found that people are more apt to persist in their beliefs, despite contradictory evidence, once they've written their beliefs down, a phenomenon known as the explanation effect.

These can includeDescription Essays Compare and Contrast EssaysClassification EssaysDefinition EssaysSequence EssayCause and effect essaysIn a cause and effect essay -(also known as an explanation essay)- the main purpose is to try and explain an event or Continue reading

Hastie and Pennington (2000) are the leading advocates of the story view (also known as explanation - based decision - making).

Not exact matches

Does your rep know the differences among these pricing structures and have a good explanation as to why they're choosing one for you?

The United Nations called him a racist, Botswana demanded to know if it qualified as a shithole, and the South African and Ghanaian governments hauled in their respective U.S. ambassadors for an explanation.

As of this afternoon, Google has chosen to no longer make YouTube available on Echo Show, without explanation and without notification to customers.

And yet, the Kubler - Ross model, better known as the «five stages of grief,» (denial; anger; bargaining; depression; acceptance) is a rather apt explanation for what is happening with common perceptions of bitcoin right now.

The explanation provided was that as a «result of accounting changes due to the Jobs and Economic Action Plan, public debt charge forecasts from the Federal Budget are no longer a reasonable estimate of cash - basis expenditures for reporting in the Estimates» [5].

Next, this is a graph of the gold price measured in silver, otherwise known as the gold to silver ratio (see here for an explanation of bid and offer prices for the ratio).

Intelligent design as well as other religious explanations for scientific questions are simply a fail - over for, «I don't know».

The overwhelming evidence in support of evolution as the explanation for life as we know it will never be enough for the willfully ignorant.

There is still no explanation for the spontaneous origin of the universe, as well as the advanced cognition of the brain (chemicals and genetics reveal general trends, but no one knows how complete thoughts are actually formed, nor emotions or personalities); creation and the human conscious, the two fundamental focuses of religion.

Taken as a whole they've made a very compelling argument that the explanations of the universe provided by both science and religion are incomplete and always evolving, and that one perspective is no more or less valid than another.

The study can only look for an effect from prayers offered as part of the research, they said.They also said they had no explanation for the higher complication rate in patients who knew they were being prayed for, in comparison to patients who only knew it was possible prayers were being said for them.»

«Okay...» then they fumble a poor explanation, then wrap it up with, «Because, as we all well know, limited atonement.»

I think I explained pretty clearly that regurgitating stock Christian explanations I know as well as you is a waste of time.

@KatMat: your analogy would begin approaching realism if: — during the pledge of allegiance kids were forced to say «one nation under The Orioles» — our nation's currency said «In Dallas Cowboys We Trust» — if millions were slaughtered, tortured and burned to death because they weren't fans of The Pittsburgh Penguins — if NASCAR fans endlessly attempted to have Intelligent Car Driving taught beside Evolution in science class as a possible explanation for how mankind developed — if «the 5 D's» of Dodgeball (Dodge, Duck, Dip, Dive, Dodge) were constantly attempted to be made into law so everyone would live by the same ridiculous notions, even if those notions knowingly discriminate — if nutters constantly claimed America was founded on the principles of Darts, even though our country SPECIFICALLY calls for a separation between Darts and State because the founders knew the inherent dangers of Darts becoming government instead of staying in the realm of sport where it belongs

No, a far, far more reasonable explanation is that it is all baloney and that the accounts were interpreted and altered with the intent to show them as evidence for the resurrection.

Over time science has shown many of these supernatural explanations to be wrong as sciences expands what it knows.

Young people whose pattern of thinking is historical and secular no longer find the traditional explanations of belief as formulated in the context of a static universe significant and meaningful.

If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step — known as a theory — in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon.»

So in this post, I will look at two traditional explanations for how God knows what it is like to lose a son, and I will also explain why I reject both explanations (which might also be why atheists and other people reject these explanations as well).

That doesn't mean we just insert «god» as a blanket explanation for what we do not know.

But, as we are not an all - knowing race, we can not conclude that God is the only answer when we lack signifcant information that could reasonably offer an alternative, or even better, explanation.

Moreover, those well «known scientists who have shown interest in anthropic coincidences generally see them as having an explanation that does not invoke purpose in nature.

But, on the other hand, it is quite unjustified for theists to hold that we must tolerate or swallow the paradoxes or explain them away (by feats of ingenuity so subtle, and verbal methods so remote from intuitive insight or definite logical structures, that only deity could know with any assurance what was taking place), giving as justification the claim that the alternative position of atheism is even more paradoxical (lacking, it may be urged, any principle of cosmic explanation at all).

However, the continuity of structure and function from nonliving matter to living and from the simplest forms of life to the most complicated strongly suggests that even the most characteristic human activities such as thought and consciousness have an explanation, as yet only partly known, in chemical and physical phenomena.

She makes this statement without offering any explanation as to how we «know» this.

I owe you no explanation as God knows my reasons and God is the only one I answer to.

If you're not a big on way to technical, in depth Bible talks, this is probably about the time to stop reading this post, as I'm about to nerd out and I know I can get dry; but I think the following explanation helps to understand how to follow Paul's thought process with all his «else», «since», «but then» and «therefore's that don't always seem to follow what he just said:

Scientism claims that the natural world is all there is, that supernatural explanations of the world are irrational, that everything can be reduced to physical causes, and that the only things we can know as true are those which Science reveals — supported by evidence, submitted to experimentation, and reviewed by peers.

Africans, who were living in a period of rapid social change gradually came to feel that their traditional world - view was no longer adequate as a method of «explanation, prediction and control.»

The biblical fall story, he insisted, can no longer be regarded as an explanation of evil, but only as an exemplification of its structures.

The common sense notions presupposed by the scientists of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, and that still shape our everyday thinking, are no longer tenable as comprehensive and fundamental explanations of things.

With an effective control over discourse, colonialism, known as globalization, assumed itself as normative and desirable and presented itself as an empirical explanation of the utopia.

Probably the best explanation is that originally this was in the form of a parable, describing Israel as a withered tree that no longer bears fruit (see Luke 13:6 - 9).

In the second place, evolutionary theory insists that an impersonal and ruthless process known as natural selection is the sole and sufficient explanation for the survival of some species and the extinction of others.

He may at times offer a tad of pseudo humility and claim that he knows that he hasn't cornered the market on doctrinal correctness, but as soon as you offer an alternative explanation that counters his belief, he lets you know that you are wrong.

As Aristotle says at the beginning of the Metaphysics, all men desire to know - and such an explanation leaves us still desiring.

He only tentatively accepted my explanation that in nonliterary circles she was known as Mrs. Hubert Stuart Moore, the wife of a London barrister.

As you know, the sphere of things that can't be critiqued (dogma) are pretty small — and even then you could critique the dogma by saying it needs further explanation.

I don't know if you will find my explanation helpful or not, but I try not to think about faith as a percentage or a degree.

In Acts (e.g. 2:16, «this is what the prophet spoke of») we have examples of the method of interpretation used in the Dead Sea Scrolls and known as pesher («interpretation» or «explanation»).

In short, the Nature we know from modern science embodies and reflects immaterial properties and a depth of intelligibility... To view all these extremely complex, elegant and intelligible laws, entities, properties and relations in the evolution of the universe as «brute facts» in need of no further explanation is, in the words of the great John Paul II, an «abdication of human intelligence».»

The most reasonable explanation is that it is characteristic of Jesus rather than the early Church, but that Paul knows the tradition preserved in Luke and, as a bilingual Jew, fully appreciates its significance.

The ones I mentioned, as you probably know, are widely accepted as the preferred explanation by a large number of contemporary scientists.

I know crazy but its something to think about since there is no ultimate explanation as to why we even exist, even if you take science to its root there is no explanation for why anything actually exists at all, after all you can't get something from nothing so I had rather have something than nothing.

The perception of time remains subject indeed to the first - mentioned, most obvious kind of explanation to the extent either that one is dealing with limited, unknown aspects of it, or that one loses one's feel for time, so that its perception can no longer rank as what is best known.

Further explanation of Hegel's attractiveness to the theologian can be found in the high estimation he has of the role of (Christian) religion,» the way in which his philosophy of history can be read as a speculative transformation of salvation history, 12 and his «high» anthropology in which human beings are moments in the self - knowing of God.»

Appealing to confirmation theory and employing Bayes's Theorem of Probability Calculus, he has developed a cumulative - case argument for God's existence that he claims inductively justifies the existence of God as the best explanation for a wide variety of well - known data.