Sentences with phrase «more valid conclusion»

I would imagine that if people met with a therapist for 3 - 4 months a more valid conclusion could be met.

Age at marriage may be a risk factor with respect to divorce, but perhaps the more valid conclusion is in the opposite direction, that high divorce rates scare couples away from early marriage.

Not exact matches

When I reflect on the infinite pains to which the human mind and heart will go in order to protect itself from the full impact of reality, when I recall the mordant analyses of religious belief which stem from the works of Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud and, furthermore, recognize the truth of so much of what these critics of religion have had to say, when I engage in a philosophical critique of the language of theology and am constrained to admit that it is a continual attempt to say what can not properly be said and am thereby led to wonder whether its claim to cognition can possibly be valid — when I ask these questions of myself and others like them (as I can not help asking and, what is more, feel obliged to ask), is not the conclusion forced upon me that my faith is a delusion?

Why is your conclusion (some god exists) any more valid than mine (it is very unlikely any god exists)?

If this conclusion is valid, then the far more important corollary is that the divine life Hartshorne calls God is not half of what it is made out to be.

We must assemble data according to scientific methods and offer a conclusion that will stand until someone else comes along with newer, more valid data.

The question thus arises as to whether any of their conclusions are valid with respect to the analysis of more ordinary kinds of religious discourse.

Given the relatively very high doses used in the study on the whole and the fact that only mild toxicity was reported, I would say that this conclusion appears to be valid but I would like to see more studies using high such high doses for comparison in order to truly validate these findings.

Or was IEA's conclusion — that the performance of American 4th graders in an international context was first class — more valid?

What is needed to produce valid conclusions about teaching effectiveness is far more complex than this snapshot.

If The New York Times thinks that it has valid research that actually supports, credibly, the conclusion that more (valid, informed, accurate, well - communicated, etc.) information actually doesn't and wouldn't budge the public's understanding of global warming, or the public's concern for global warming, I'd ask that such research be posted or linked, so we can all review it.

However valid its conclusions, the report toys with our intuitions about science — that a number is more precise than a word, that a statistic is more accurate than a belief.

Although his comment suggested such, I doubt that he really believes that individual commenters here were responding because something had been «deemed urgent» by some unspecified «deemers,» and, (2) it seems to me that you might be drawing conclusions from Lewandowsky's research that (assuming you find his research methodology to be valid — which some seem to question) are not supported by the evidence he offered: Evidence that informs the question of whether conspiracy ideation is relatively more prevalent on the «skeptical» side than the «realist» side.

For ALL of these reconstructions [or all # of these studies with adequately archived data and methods], replacing one or two tree - ring proxies with [equally or] more valid proxies invalidates their conclusions that current temperatures are very likely (p > 0.95) unprecedented in the past millennium.»

In terms of greenhouse agents, the main conclusions from the WGI FAR Policymakers Summary are still valid today: (1) «emissions resulting from human activities are substantially increasing the atmospheric concentrations of the greenhouse gases: CO2, CH4, CFCs, N2O»; (2) «some gases are potentially more effective (at greenhouse warming)»; (3) feedbacks between the carbon cycle, ecosystems and atmospheric greenhouse gases in a warmer world will affect CO2 abundances; and (4) GWPs provide a metric for comparing the climatic impact of different greenhouse gases, one that integrates both the radiative influence and biogeochemical cycles.

The fact of the matter is, his conclusion is no more valid than its opposite.

Or being more explict, do the reasons indicate what the panel thought was the better conclusion, even the more probable valid conclusion.

In all cases, the conclusions are wholly consistent with those in the CBA Futures Report, «[i] f the goal of CPD is to improve competence, then more valid measures of the process would be outcomes rather than inputs (hours of study).»