Sentences with phrase «only accept conclusions»

It argued convincingly that politicians and others with the power to make education policy rarely read education research, and if they do, they only accept conclusions that confirm their biases.

The team tallied the results with an agreement threshold, only accepting conclusions if at least five models predicted similar fluctuations.

Not exact matches

For the sake of argument, if the article (which I didn't read) used only words that left no room for doubt (in a sense saying «We know with 100 % certainty that...), would you accept the conclusions?

If we accept their bias of a priori materialism, and embrace Lewontin's declaration of the problem and his proposed solution — embracing the social and intellectual apparatus of Science as the only begetter of truth — can we follow his solution to its ultimate conclusion?

But in its defense he cited Alasdair MacIntyre's conclusion in After Virtue (University of Notre Dame Press, 1984) that no generally accepted concept of justice is available therefore, «even justice can only be provisional this side of the eschatological fullness of the kingdom of God.»

On the other side are «creationists,» who argue — against not only science but also those faiths that accept the compatibility of evolutionary biology and Sacred Writ — that the earth was created on or around Sunday, October 23, 4004 b.c., a conclusion based on a sincere but discredited calculation by James Ussher in the seventeenth century.

If the majority of society put half of the effort into developing their intellect and forming their own beliefs that many put into living a life controlled by what any random man who claims they are spreading God's message, perhaps people would actually come to their own conclusions rather than simply accepting the ones presented to them as the one and only truth.

============ CONCLUSIONS A. # 1 is an accepted scientific fact, by theists and atheists, importantly: it does not in and of itself describe how we got from initial proto - cell to current complexity B. # 2 has a severe flaw, as phyletic gradualism is dead, and punctuated equilibrium (the fossil record being characterized by new species appearing fully formed) is an accepted fact C. # 3 is the ONLY theory that has support from the fossil record

Subsequent research led to the radical but now widely accepted conclusion that birds are, in fact, the only living descendants of dinosaurs.

While some skeptics say that more fossil evidence is needed before they accept this team's conclusions, many agree that the discovery of a fossil ape from this time period is important since only one other had been found.

So inevitable are these conclusions, in fact, that I just gave up and accepted the ending, which sidesteps a first - glance case of double jeopardy with such vague dialogue, recited in such a bland tone of sotto voce, that I only got the basic gist of how we got from Point A to Point B. With Point B such a shrug - worthy certainty, I wasn't nearly confused enough to care besides.

The only caveat here is that the uninterrupted service does rely on the merchant accepting Apple Pay, which we all know isn't a foregone conclusion.

These allegations were reported gleefully in the Boston Globe, the New York Times, the Washington Post, Nature, Scientific American, and many other media outlets and news pages of science journals in a manner calculated not only to divert attention from the conclusions of our paper but also to damage Dr Soon's reputation in his scientific calling, to put his employment at the Center at risk, to deter more serious journals from accepting future papers bearing his name as an author, to deter potential funders for fear of adverse publicity, and thus to threaten not only his livelihood but also the science he loves.

It provides the user only with presumptive reasoning for accepting the conclusion, subject to further investigations and to critical questioning.

I do in places amplify my conclusions with additional statements, such as explicitly accepting three other datasets in a sence Dr. Curry apparently hadn't considered, and rejecting the uses of any other IPCC product than what I state later — only the model runs, and only to establish «What - if» there were no GHE as a secondary confirmation of what we know from our premises, the data, and strict inference.)

Possible conclusions could be that the delay is 12 months but even you yourself accept it is only 6 months so that is not the case, also if there was a delay of 12 months, 24 months, 36 months etc then you would see a discrepency between the two measurements ie the SH would continually record a lower level of CO2 than the NH once again i do not believe this to be the case.

But in any case peer - review is only the first stage in a paper becoming widely accepted — after it is published people will consider its conclusions, methodology etc. and if they think it wrong there are, as I said, mechanisms for challenging it in the peer - reviewed press.

Of course, if one accepts the conclusions of several solar studies that around 50 % (rather than 7 %) of the 20th century warming can be attributed to the unusually high level of solar activity (highest in several thousand years)-- most of which occurred in the first half of the century — then the 2xCO2 impact would only be ~ 0.8 C.

Science is only useful when it asks the right questions, openly tests hypothetical models with honesty and integrity and accepts the conclusion with the understanding that «not false» is not the same «true».

Besides, a little logic goes a long way: If the published science is on the order of 1,000:1 in support of the ACC conclusion and if the natural observations not only confirm, but show they are inadequate in that they are far too conservative, then it is virtually impossible to accept that those hyping an anti-ACC message are doing so on ethical and moral bases.

So the only conclusion — accepting Miskolczi's hypothesis — is that flux is proportional to temperature.

Although the three additional provisions were likely added only to increase clarity and confirm the parties» intention as stated in s. 2 (2), the Court concluded that most of these provisions would have been redundant if the employer's interpretation of s. 2 (2) was accepted, thereby lending further support to the Court's conclusion that s. 2 (2) did not clearly limit Holm's entitlement.

There are a few conclusions that I have made at this early stage: (1) this research is needed more than I originally anticipated and I am already certain that I will only scratch the tip of a large iceberg (there is more than one PhD topic here); (2) the standards, rules and codes are not helpful; and (3) the process will provide the margins of accepted norms, but I anticipate three distinct spheres of behaviours will emerge — one for each ADR process.