Sentences with phrase «prove your theory in»

Here is an example of a Litecoin graph so I can prove this theory in practice.

«divide themselves into oblivion» LOL — yes, well that might actually prove some theory in the process — when do tickets go on sale?

However, the point I'm making is that one could not really prove a theory in political science, but only refute it.

One of the key issues to keep in mind when preparing for a thesis defense is that defending your thesis entails explaining and attempting to prove your theory in a public presentation.

Not exact matches

In a moment of hubris or weakness or lunacy — take your pick — I decided to prove those theories were right.

«We have to prove out the theory in many ways,» he said.

In theory, these materials are regulated and should be hard to get, but as the covert group proved, anyone with sufficient money and will can obtain the potentially devastating materials.

In many instances this theory will prove accurate.

No doubt time travelling sociologists are using us in a large lab test to prove theories on mass delusion; the worse the climate gets, the more we will deny it is happening.

Taking into account the objections and reservations around stereotyping and variations, the theory still can prove useful in a leader's toolkit.

The theory of disruptive innovation, introduced in these pages in 1995, has proved to be a powerful way of thinking about innovation - driven growth.

Its research activities seek to develop actionable, prescriptive theory that can guide general managers in the decisions they must make, re-invigorating general management research by following a proven research process, refining it through collaboration with practitioners, and then distributing it to a broad audience In pursuit of these goals, the Forum both hosts conferences to bring together academic experts, leading practitioners, and Harvard Business School alumni to develop current ideas and engages in extensive publishing activitiein the decisions they must make, re-invigorating general management research by following a proven research process, refining it through collaboration with practitioners, and then distributing it to a broad audience In pursuit of these goals, the Forum both hosts conferences to bring together academic experts, leading practitioners, and Harvard Business School alumni to develop current ideas and engages in extensive publishing activitieIn pursuit of these goals, the Forum both hosts conferences to bring together academic experts, leading practitioners, and Harvard Business School alumni to develop current ideas and engages in extensive publishing activitiein extensive publishing activities.

To beat roulette, Thorp invented new applications of probability theory and even wrote best - selling book Beat the Dealer — the first book to mathematically prove that the house advantage in blackjack could be overcome by card counting.

In theory, proponents could prove that economic benefits would offset the environmental damage, but B.C.'s Ministry of Transportation, which must implement the government's tunnel - removal plan, chose instead to avoid the issue.

The Intelligent Investor was first published in 1949, and in the nearly 60 years since it first came out, Graham's theories have proven true time and again.

This faith is either in evolution (molecules to man theory not proven, but only mans» speculation at best) or creationism (God / intelligent designer as described in Bible).

It was theory decades ago, but has since been proven, in part by the existence of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB), but also by astronomical observations and by particle accelerator experiments.

Evolution is proved as good as Eisteins relativity - theories -LRB--RRB- and in reality as good as any scientific theory can be.

This may come as a shock to you — BUT - evolution could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in court — if it is a «Law» of science and not a theory explain to me why Scientist in the same field have differing opinions theory has undergone massive changes since the 1850's when Darwin first came up with the THEORY — there are a lot of interesting similarities to true science which makes it sound so plausible, but it should sound good — After all the top scientist / humanists in the world promote it and they are all prettytheory explain to me why Scientist in the same field have differing opinions theory has undergone massive changes since the 1850's when Darwin first came up with the THEORY — there are a lot of interesting similarities to true science which makes it sound so plausible, but it should sound good — After all the top scientist / humanists in the world promote it and they are all prettytheory has undergone massive changes since the 1850's when Darwin first came up with the THEORY — there are a lot of interesting similarities to true science which makes it sound so plausible, but it should sound good — After all the top scientist / humanists in the world promote it and they are all prettyTHEORY — there are a lot of interesting similarities to true science which makes it sound so plausible, but it should sound good — After all the top scientist / humanists in the world promote it and they are all pretty smart

It is in fact, still a «theory», and thus, has not been proven.

In their attempt to prove their theory they draw imaginary lines connecting the dots the way they want them to appear.

In the early days of his influence on literary studies, his theories proved particularly pernicious, sending scholars scurrying after phallic symbols and psychoanalyzing authors.

As for the article there is still no DNA evidence to support it so in theory Nothing is related... And why does it matter what or why we believe in God??? If you want to prove us so wrong do more then flap your mouth..

More like from chemistry to astrophysics — there's a lot about the universe that can't be explained but but physicists put a lot of faith in theory until their definitevly proven wrong.

In science something is called a theory because there is a chance of it being proven, however that doesn't mean it can or ever will, it's sciences way of saying it doesn't have a 100 % answer.

Charles Darwin admitted that fossils of the transitional links between species would have to be found in order to prove his «Theory of Evolution.»

You have correct definitions, except you left out the definition of a SCIENTIFIC theory, which is different than a regular theory in that these theories are true but still might be able to be proven false.

I firmly anticipate science will be able in the future come to grips with how the universe was created, a proven theory will probably equate to a Deity.

As Dawkins concedes, even a single unclimbable precipice spoils the theory» although the difficulty in proving that any one precipice is truly unclimbable means that a great many examples will have to be considered.

Pairing feminist theory with women's local wisdom, Jones exposes not only the potential pitfalls of classical doctrines, but also how, with some skillful feminist remapping, doctrines prove capacious enough for new generations of women to inhabit in grace - filled ways.

Even his most complex theory which seems to involve matter in the universe disappearing permanently in various places, which he even challenged to his opponents to prove wrong, was pretty much proven wrong by a group of determined scientists.

Right, they are just theories, in various stages of being proven, wholly or partially, or not at all.

Mr Hawking has faith in things he can not prove, just theories, as such science is his religions.

There is another respect, however, in which Whitehead's theory may prove to have advantages.

To be sure, Stapp may be proven correct in the end, but that would entail the overthrow of the special theory of relativity.

I don't think you meant what you said in the following statement: «And Not like most of us... Mr. Hawking has not put forth a «proven» Final Theory or the Theory of Everything...»

Trying to insert god into scientific theories is only setting yourself up for science to prove you wrong in time, so how about you try and look at things with a fresh perspective and consider the possibility that god (or at least the version of god you have in mind) has a very low probability of existing.

For example, he said, look at the Buddhist theory of impermanence, the idea that the physical world is changing by the second, which was later proved by quantum physics in the movement of atoms.

Evolution is the only theory that is currently doubted even though there is a lot of observation and experiments that prove it is true... because of the creation story in the Bible (even though there are two conflicting creation stories in the Bible).

i am not sure how admitting evolution is a theory, and not a proven fact equates to someone not getting a job in future.

Just wondering one thing Bill, Science has proven one of many things, one of the things I find amusing when I listen to someone like you tell me that we all came about in what Vern called the Big Bang Theory.

How would a person living in a desert know these things without actually someone telling him this?!!! And who is that someone?!!! No one at that time knew anything about big bang theory?!! The actual translation of the arabic word رتقا is it was like a fabric that got torn apart?!!! Isn't that big bang?!! And the other part that was proven too is that everything alive needs water to live?!!! How did they know that then?!!! Islam and science support each other and science only getting to prove things now which was mentioned 1500 years ago in the Quran!!!

While his theory may take billions of years to verify, creationism has no basis in reality and can never be proven.

Just like I will not believe in a God I can not see, I am not going to believe in a theory that is not proven.

This misconception, which has ever since flourished unquestioned among Whiteheadian philosophers, proved a powerful factor, I think, in Whitehead's ultimate adoption of an atomic or epochal theory of becoming.

As a Christian I have no need to respond with «You're so stupid» or similar comments, because my faith in God is strong enough that I will believe no matter what, and my degree will enable me to understand and find any flaw in any theory that supposedly «proves» that God doesn't exist.

So its ok for him to prove his points (which btw science can not prove something to be real when it comes to THEORIES which is what evolution is, which i believe to be true), yet when someone wants to believe in something that they see points to proof in thats not ok?

In science, you can never «prove» a hypothesis or theory, you can only continue to find support for it or prove it incorrect.

The only thing you can ever «prove» is mathematics, science will always consist of theories because our understanding doesn't include a testable occurrence in envy single possible environment or situation.

This is another example of simple - minded people distorting the truth in ANY way they can in a desperate attempt to prove their own fallacious theories.