«We are seeing advancements in recovery following rehabilitation, but
little objective evidence.
Not exact matches
Not necessarily in tone or by being insulting (thankfully there's been relatively
little of that from both sides), but in that we require and unashamedly DEMAND real,
objective evidence.
Eventually enough people will come to their senses and will pay more attention to
objective evidence - based research and not the simple
little fairy tales in religious texts that made sense back when humans were far less educated.
It is trust given with
little or no basis in
objective evidence.
Denial on the other hand, is being skeptical of an assertion that has a lot of
objective evidence,
little to no conflicting
objective evidence, and has been independently verified and often is consistent across multiple disciplines, but hasn't been «proved».
I always find plenty of «
evidence» for extended breastfeeding but for some reason I have always been a
little sceptical of it (and don't have the time, money or inclination to read the articles referenced)-- probably because the sources are pro-extended breastfeeding and therefore less than
objective.
As any researcher can immediately note, such surveys have
little usefulness as
objective evidence, because they are based on subjective opinions that can change based on who is working in classrooms, because survey designs can be flawed with leading questions yielding results favorable to the pollster, and because survey designs can change drastically from year to year.
While the stated
objective of the PB framework is to «guide human societies» away from a state of the Earth system that is «less hospitable to the development of human societies», it offers
little scientific
evidence to support the connection between the global state of specific Earth system processes and human well - being.
Confirmation bias may thus be especially harmful to
objective evaluations regarding nonconforming results, since biased individuals may regard opposing
evidence to be weak in principle and give
little serious thought to revising their beliefs.
BC Injury Law And ICBC Claims Blog Subjective Soft Tissue Injuries And Judicial Scrutiny Last year I criticized the often recited judicial passage stating that «``... the Court should be exceedingly careful when there is
little or no
objective evidence of continuing injury and when complaints of pain persist for long periods extending beyond the normal or usual recovery...» and pointing out that these comments should no longer be used given Supreme Court of Canada's reasons in FH v. McDougall.
(ICBC's doctor) impressed upon me that he was more of an advocate for ICBC than an
objective expert, and I therefoe attach
little wieght to his
evidence.
There is
little evidence to prove that a resume which lacks an
objective is favored by employers.
There is very
little evidence that resumes without
objectives make it to the «to be interviewed» pile.