Sentences with phrase «not empirical observation»

Not exact matches

«Middle Child Syndrome» is a psychological label for the empirical observation that middle children often do not receive as much parental attention as first and last - born siblings.

The projections noted above are based on NPT's experience and observations over the past year, and not on empirical data collection.

He is persuaded by Kant's argument that we can not infer divine designs or moral principles from empirical observation.

Truth emerges in empirical observation, not in revelation.

38 - 39: «Par.38: Historical knowledge is not empirical knowledge, it is not perception or observation; it is essentially inferential.

For McGrath, natural theology is not a means to prove the existence of God, but rather should aim to highlight a «fundamental consonance or resonance between Christian theory and empirical observation».

What it doesn't do is make the case through empirical observation.

You basically said «since you don't believe what I do, which is based on FAITH and not empirical evidence, all other observations and science are false.»

As other masters of hermeneutics have done, Humboldt postulates a circle — though not of the vicious variety: only through the empirical observation of manifestations and expressions can we arrive at an understanding of the inner forces that determine a character, but we need to understand these inner forces to interpret the manifestation correctly.

Empirical evidence is based on observation or experiment, not on theory.

Schweitzer's ethical mysticism begins with a reflective observation of the finite world («I am urge - to - life»), moves to an empirical generalization («in the midst of other wills - to - live»), is made cosmic by an intuitive insight, which is the completing or mystical element of thought («all is part of a cosmic or universal will - to - live»), and returns to the finite for experiential verification in ethical participation («Ethics alone can put me in true relationship with the universe by my serving it, cooperating with it; not by trying to understand it... It is through community of life, not community of thought, that I abide in harmony... [«The Ethics of Reverence for Life,» Christendom, Vol.

I have made an observation that is not empirical: when a team has the # 1 pick, the improvement they exhibit in the following season is not huge.

The study takes a wide view of the world's songbirds, putting empirical evidence behind the observation that tropical birds are more colorful than their cousins from temperate climates, probably because they do not migrate.

It's not big realization stuff, it's empirical observation followed by a conclusion, which is different.

This observation is borrowed from a book of academic Robert Shiller, but I don't think it came with empirical analysis, just a hypothesis.

I make this observation not to ding Jim's paper, but to raise a really troubling problem for all academics: how to deal with data from other scholars» empirical work?

The response to the latter is that the observed behavior has to be modeled on the basis of physical principles — not simply empirical observation.

Here lies some issues too: if a couple of studies being heavily relied upon are being used that have some unknown flaws the Bayes approach may or may not be able to correct for those, whereas direct empirical observations can better correct for such issues, and there are some other frequentist approaches, though much more tedious, can better control for such errors.

The «Report» is based not on theoretical demonstration nor on empirical observation but on computer models — an expensive and unreliable form of guesswork.

On full climate sensitivity I have stated repeatedly that the empirical evidence is not strong, but every paper that is not technically so badly wrong that the results can be dismissed and that uses some empirical observations to estimate which values are unlikely presents empirical evidence on climate sensitivity — far from proof but evidence.

The «clear sky radiative forcing due to CO2» (3.7 W / m ^ 2 for a doubling per Myhre et al. 1998b and IPCC TAR) is not a measured entity based on empirical data from actual physical observations or reproducible experimentation, but rather an estimated value based on laboratory studies of spectroscopic data.

Climate alarmism is not based on empirical observation; rather, it is entirely predicated on computer models that are manipulated to generate predictions of significant global warming as a result of increased concentrations of CO2.

I am just reiterating the concept so brilliantly defined by Feyman that a hypothesis, no matter how elegant the theoretical derivation and no matter from whom it came, isn't really worth very much unless it can be validated by empirical evidence, such as actual physical observation or reproducible experimentation.

Strawman, quote my words not what you imagine, I do not assume that — I repeat: From the way you have mangled my post in your replies I'm coming to the reluctant conclusion that you're either incapable of thinking to the standard required in science which is the ability to separate fact from fiction in the discipline of empirical observation and testing, or, you're deliberately distracting from the points I'm making in my argument.

Regarding the statistics of propagated error, when the error is empirical (made vs. observations) one doesn't know the true distribution.

b) the premise that AGW is the direct cause of recent severe weather events has also not been validated by empirical data based on physical observations or reproducible experimentation

a) the premise that AGW has been the principal cause of 20th century warming (and thus represents a serious potential threat) has not been validated by empirical data based on physical observations or reproducible experimentation

«Creationism» does not have the support of empirical data from observations or lab work.

Fifth, even if real scientific investigation (which doesn't stop with modeling but tests models by empirical observation) could tell us that, say, falling 50 % short of net zero «carbon» emissions would raise GAT by, say, 3 ° C and that that, in turn, would cause significant harms, that wouldn't tell us how we ought to respond.

In a optimal comparison of observations with a model every empirical value should have a weight that varies only based on empirical uncertainties in the particular value, not on it's closeness to either end of the full period.

It is an empirical observation that SOL and MUL show regularities that are not at all apparent in DEC..

That's not merely an empirical observation, it's an easily proved mathematical fact.

The Report's assumptions are simply not supported by empirical observation of nature.

As others have noted, the IPCC Team has gone absolutely feral about Salby's research and the most recent paper by Dr Roy Spencer, at the University of Alabama (On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in Earth's Radiant Energy Balance), for one simple reason: both are based on empirical, undoctored satellite observations, which, depending on the measure required, now extend into the past by up to 32 years, i.e. long enough to begin evaluating real climate trends; whereas much of the Team's science in AR4 (2007) is based on primitive climate models generated from primitive and potentially unreliable land measurements and proxies, which have been «filtered» to achieve certain artificial realities (There are other more scathing descriptions of this process I won't use).

Therefore these are not the results of empirical observations but are speculative conjectures.

«Major improvements include updated and substantially more complete input data from the ICOADS Release 2.5, revised Empirical Orthogonal Teleconnections (EOTs) and EOT acceptance criterion, updated sea surface temperature (SST) quality control procedures, revised SST anomaly (SSTA) evaluation methods, revised low - frequency data filing in data sparse regions using nearby available observations, updated bias adjustments of ship SSTs using Hadley Nighttime Marine Air Temperature version 2 (HadNMAT2), and buoy SST bias adjustments not previously made in v3b.»

[Not model simulations, which are only as good as their input assumptions, but empirical evidence i.e. based on actual physical observations or reproducible experimentation (Feynman)-RSB-

Because the models are not deterministic, multiple simulations are needed to compare with observations, and the number of simulations conducted by modeling centers are insufficient to create a pdf with a robust mean; hence bounding box approaches (assessing whether the range of the ensembles bounds the observations) are arguably a better way to establish empirical adequacy.

There are many «follow - up» arguments, but the key argument used by the rational skeptics of the IPCC CAGW premise is simply that it has not been corroborated by empirical scientific data, derived from actual physical observations and / or reproducible experimentation.

No, Hoffman's observations aren't necessarily «scientific,» as in statistically significant empirical evidence.

You'd think they'd be built into the climate models, yet the models aren't agreeing with the empirical observations.

The fact that your science can not do justice to your actual empirical observations should tell you that you are not doing science.

That time exists and has a direction is an empirical observation and, notably, is not something proven or even predicted by theory.

And empirical observations show that the current standstill is not the only one.

I am concerned that this empirical, observation - based science that aligns with cooling is not being addressed.

Aa = Ed, is not required by Miskolczi or derived by him; it is based on empirical observations:

Show me the empirical data, based on real - time physical observations or reproducible experimentation (NOT climate model runs), which support the premise that GH warming requires decades or even centuries to reach «equilibrium».

First of all, it is not supported by empirical data derived from real - time physical observations or reproducible experimentation, as you have suggested should be done.

A hypothesis that can not be falsified by empirical observations, is not science.

This bizarre notion that models are somehow more reliable than empirical observation is NOT just a climate science thing.