The majority stated at para 38 that the inference of causation can be made through
merely circumstantial evidence, meaning the use of «positive evidence» from the Board's policy can include inconclusive or even contrary expert evidence.
The Court ruled that «causation can be inferred — even in the face of inconclusive or contrary expert evidence — from other evidence, including
merely circumstantial evidence», and that the task of weighing evidence rests with the Tribunal.
Not exact matches
Then they used inference (i.e. created knowledge) from
circumstantial (e.g. outside the limited scientific domain) evidence to establish a baseline, which may be generally representative or
merely an isolated sample from evolutionary processes (i.e. chaotic).
So why is my stuff of a very similar nature To yours
merely anecdotal and ramblings, but YOUR stuff that is «anecdotal and
circumstantial» is ok when it demonstrates warming?