Sentences with phrase «other accepted theories»

Coherence with other accepted theories is also sought.

To challenge a theory as a basis for action, you need to demonstrate that it is inconsistent in itself, or with other accepted theory, or that the theory produces predictions incompatible with observed reality, or that another theory explains the existing data at least as fully.

Not exact matches

Peoples» attention has been distracted into speculation about of how they might get rich in a parallel universe that might exist in theory — if one accepts the narrow - minded assumptions that are being taught — but whose most important real - world consequence is to impose a debt spiral on America and other nations.

If we were to accept Religious theories, on the other hand, there would be no debate at all.

The textbooks in Texas (which drives many other states» printings) does have alternative theories to accepted science.

A student with basic training in the sciences knows not to accept something like the «big bang theory», or other science lore.

All these metaphors have been worked into theories of the atonement in Christian history; but it is remarkable that no single doctrine of atonement has ever become the accepted theory to the exclusion of the others.

While many scientific theories together, like gravity, thermodynamics, relativity, etc. explain much of what we see today, there aren't many generally accepted scientific theories that both explain something equally well and contradict each other.

If you can't accept that you're theory is as flawed as other theories you're just like the close minded Talibans.

Whitehead devised his metaphysic to elucidate forms of experience besides perception, and to systematize concepts drawn from other sources Nevertheless, certain problems can be solved while accepting perception more nearly at face value than Whitehead did in his later theory.

This claim, in theory and practice, is as exclusive as any made by certain religions in history, and has the same tragic consequences on the life of other people who refuse to accept such claims.

The Anglican philosopher - bishop Joseph Butler extended this theory to explain why some men accepted evidence which pointed to the truth of Christianity and others did not.

This is no different than some young people going to college and leaving their brains at the door and swallowing evolutionary theory and purposely rejecting the obvious of what creation clearly shows except this is leaving your brain at the door of theology school and accepting man's opinion over what is clearly stated in the holy scriptures, and then teaching others false doctrine.

Multiple other GOP lawmakers also cited theories that are not accepted by mainstream climate scientists, according to reports.

Today widely accepted as the standard version of the Big Bang theory, inflation holds that regions of the universe that are currently separated by many billions of light - years were once close enough to each other that they could exchange heat and reach the same temperature before they were wildly super-sized.

Climate change and imported disease may have killed them, but most paleontologists accept the theory Martin advocates: «When people got out of Africa and Asia and reached other parts of the world, all hell broke loose.»

For the sake of the argument — «if pigs could fly,» as Wilk puts it, he says he'll accept their data, their theory, and other predictions that can be derived from them.

This is a well - accepted theory that supports my answer to the question, which is that it is not worth it because others have the same info and will have bought it up to the appropriate price.

There is certainly no widely accepted theory that says faster trading technology necessarily increases efficiency, and it is easy to think of algorithms that can make money (at least in the short run) but hurt most other investors, as well as the informational value of the market.

There's a commonly accepted theory, but there are also some very small details that indicate other things.

Taking vast, remote landscapes and the ephemeral conditions of nature as their sculptural canvas, these and other artists staged their own protest by rejecting traditional sculptural forms and practices, rigid modernist theory and the commercial confines of the museum - and - gallery system to create frequently massive land art works that heightened awareness of our relationship with the earth and challenged accepted definitions of art.

This tribal theory applies to peoples political affiliations such as liberal or conservative, or membership of other social groups, and we know liberals do tend to accept climate science more than conservatives from polls by Pew Research etc, although its not black and white.

It seems kind of odd that he omits to mention that in the United States, Australia and probably other places the theory of evolution is not accepted by a majority of citizens.

What you accept as hard science, others reject as unproven theories.

instead of — OK, I can not think of anything pithy to put here other than ``... accepting CAGW theory..»

Collective delusion, just like the luminiferous aether, caloric (even Lord Kelvin took a fair amount of convincing before he accepted that the caloric theory was false), and many others.

In other words, do you have a published peer reviewed scientific journal that has been accepted by the scientific community that falsifies scientific knowledge (the scientific theory of «dangerous» anthropogenic climate change and the scientific fact of a warming earth)?

MOST scientists sceptical of the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) accepted that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas; they simply don't believe it is very potent relative to other natural forces.

This strong ethical and moral responsibility is derivable both from the universally accepted moral principles including the widely accepted golden rule which requires people to treat others as they wish to be treated, and international law including, but not limited to the «no harm» rule which is a widely recognized principle of customary international law whereby a State is duty - bound to prevent, reduce and control the risk of environmental harm to other states and a rule agreed to by all nations in the preamble to the UNFCCC, the «polluter - pays principle» agreed to by almost all nations in the 1992 Rio Declaration, human rights law which requires nations to assure that their citizens enjoy human rights, and many other legal theories including tort law.

This strong ethical and moral responsibility is derivable both from the universally accepted moral principles including the widely accepted golden rule which requires people to treat others as they wish to be treated, and international law including, but not limited to: (a) the «no harm» rule which is a widely recognized principle of customary international law whereby a State is duty - bound to prevent, reduce and control the risk of environmental harm to other states, and a rule agreed to by all nations in the preamble to the UNFCCC, (b) the «polluter - pays principle» agreed to by almost all nations in the 1992 Rio Declaration, (c) human rights law which requires nations to assure that their citizens enjoy human rights, and (d) many other legal theories including tort law.

I think the evidence for anthropogenic global warming is as hard as any other accepted physical theory.

Then, in order to accept that theory as fact, one then proves it via experimentation that can be duplicated by others.

On the other side of the coin, forcing all new facts, all findings of research, to align with existing accepted facts or to the overriding current theories of a field of study retards or even prevents scientific progress.

While that individual would be positing something that is the well - accepted scientific consensus, in some states, under law, that is only a «controversial theory among other theories.»

Others accept (correctly) that that is unlikely due to the thermal inertia of our oceans and their cooling effect on the air so they propose an «ocean skin'theory whereby warming of the topmost molecules on the ocean surface from extra downwelling infra red radiation from extra human CO2 in the air is supposed to reduce the natural energy flow from sea to air so that the oceans get warmer and then heat the air and kill us off that way.

The work that forms the foundation of climate change science is cited with great frequency by many other scientists, demonstrating that the theory is widely accepted - and relied upon.

The surprise to me with this lawsuit is that it doesn't feature sensational evidence like others did — the older Kivalina v Exxon case and the newer San Mateo / Marin / Imperial Beach v. Chevron cases — by citing the infamous «leaked memo set» headlined with «reposition global warming as theory rather than fact,» which are universally accepted among enviro - activists as smoking gun evidence of skeptic climate scientists being paid to push misinformation to the public at the behest of sinister corporate handlers.

On the other hand, Einstein disagreed with the majority of scientists who accepted quantum theory.

There are two basic problems with your theory: You say: can't one accept a case on contingency and «as time permits,» so that in such an event one would simply drop the contingency case (or, if it looked promising, hand it off to some other lawyer in a slump)?

I concluded (inferred inductively, not deduced, based on my relevant experience and other factors that need not be enumerated that you'll have to accept are relevant) by applying robust and pragmatic, ordinanry common sense, not abstract metaphysical theory, that the better place to start was the Corrections Act.

Using confirmation theory, this study investigated how romantic couples» (N = 100) accepting and challenging communication was associated with several weight management (WM) outcomes (i.e., partners» general effectiveness in motivating each other to enact healthy behaviors, productivity of WM conversations, and diet and exercise behaviors).

In developmental psychology, it works the other way: The theory that parental behaviors have effects on child outcomes is accepted a priori, and someone who dares to question it is required to back up her skepticism with evidence that the null hypothesis is true (which, of course, is impossible to produce).