Sentences with phrase «reject hypotheses»

We can only accept or reject hypotheses on their own merit, though we may be persuaded to believe in the one of multiple alternatives that best satisfies our criteria at any one time for the purposes of policy.

In this connection, I want to emphasize that in 1994, then - Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, prefect of the congregation over which I now preside, with the approval of then - Pope Saint John Paul II, had to intervene expressly in order to reject a hypothesis that had appeared (the one that you set forth in your question).

To confirm or reject a hypothesis is a process in scientific method and the riggers of that process necessary to lift accepted theory up to the level of a belief (world view) is the riggers of scientism.

The 20 - year - old defined why he's discovering it troublesome to indicate his finest form on the Camp Nou and rejected hypothesis he may depart the team.

«It was speculated on the basis of the physical size that the red deer was most closely related to the giant deer; but we can clearly reject this hypothesis with our study,» says Alexander Immel, a member of Krause's team.

He rejects this hypothesis, reporting that the marks «bear no evidence of healing or callus formation» and are simply normal anatomical features.

We rejected the hypothesis of an isotropic distribution of these cosmic rays with at least a 99 % confidence level from a prescribed a priori test.

Translating the hypothesis to a numerical model forces you to confront the ambiguities; along the way there are many points where you might reject the hypothesis because of a discovery from first principles (violation of conservation laws, dimensional inconsistency, qualitative failure to replicate the hypothesized behavior mode, absurd behavior in extremes, etc.).

We found that this was not the case and we rejected the hypothesis that Yap was the sole source of larvae for Palau's recovery.

Fluid dynamics, rejecting hypotheses, hot - spot, funding, scientific credibility, CO2 influence, energy flows, Kininmonth, convection, infrared radiation, amplification, unrealistic, endangerment finding, Carlin, UK Climate Change Act, Helm, electricity pricing, reliability, glyphosate, CO2 social costs, benefit, $ 0.00, USGCRP

The low activity of these three stars could indicate that these stars are in a grand activity minimum, similar to what the Sun went through during the Maunder Minimum63, but the observations at hand do not allow us to confirm or reject this hypothesis.

By balanced, we mean that we can not reject the hypothesis that there are no differences in the observable characteristics of lotteried - in and lotteried - out students.

The results strongly reject the hypothesis that teacher performance is completely stable within teachers over long periods of time, but estimates suggest that a component of performance appears to persist within teachers, even over a ten - year panel.

How many sites would you have to drill before the results would be significant enough to reject the hypothesis?

He rejected this hypothesis by concluding that «the legislature has been very grossly imposed upon» in paying bounties.

This tendency, if it exists, may be the seed for the extinction of our species, but if it is, no one will be around to accept or reject my hypothesis when the data become available.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (big pdf file) and other climate - research groups have largely rejected the hypothesis that variations in the sun's behavior could have played a big role in warming since 1950 (the period in which the panel and the vast majority of climate specialists see abundant evidence that a human - caused buildup of greenhouse gases is the main influence).

I have no idea what you mean by the heat on the planet, but if you mean why do I reject the hypothesis of human caused global warming, here is a good place to start: http://www.cfact.org/2018/01/02/no-co2-warming-for-the-last-40-years/

You also mentioned that there was an expectation of drier weather in SW Australia, and that this had influenced your thinking in terms of rejecting the hypothesis of no change.

And yet it sounds like he's rejecting your hypothesis.

If this is not a clear scientific refutation (i.e. rejecting a hypothesis based on contradictory evidence)-- then are you not just as guilty of making politics out of science as Ian Stewart is?

«Future research will confirm or reject our hypothesis,» they said.

The null hypothesis works the other way: in this case, the null hypothesis is that no trend exists in hurricanes in connection with observed 0.5 °C warming; if you can not reject that hypothesis, as the authors say you can't, then it is useless to linger on any theory of «how» (or why) it happens.

Only someone who hasn't looked at the data will reject the hypothesis of an increasing trend.

So, armed with an understanding of statistical significance you can now draw the following conclusions (i) We can reject the null hypothesis that the observed warming trend since 1970 has arisen by chance (ii) We can't reject the hypothesis of a stable positive trend of about 0.15 degrees per decade since 1970.

Such a frequentist hypothesis test for this problem would not reject the hypothesis that the parameter had a particular value that turns out to have close to the largest likelihood, at any reasonable significance threshold.

We test and reject the hypothesis that this climate oscillation was directly forced by periodic changes in solar activity.

If your null hypothesis is that some measure of global average temperature hasn't changed since 1979, then I'm reasonably certain that having the same temperature in 2008 as 1979 means you can not reject that hypothesis.

Re: JS (# 397), pretty much as I posted at # 381 but now with the full data set: as a statistical matter, one can reject the hypothesis that the YAD, POR and JAH trees (living trees) have the same growth profile as the sub-fossil trees with which they have been combined in the Yamal composite.

We can't yet, I believe, reject the hypothesis that these temperatures post-2000 are in a different Range from 1925 - 2000; but, if it is a different Range, it's a higher one, that much we can tell.

In addition to the evidence that we reported on here and here, a couple of brand new papers just hit the scientific journals this month that emphatically reject the hypothesis that global warming is leading to more blocking patterns in the jet stream (and accompanying severe weather outbreaks across the U.S.).

We can't yet, I believe, reject the hypothesis that these temperatures post-2000 are in the same Range from 1925 - 2000; but, if it is a different Range, it's a higher one, that much we can tell.

Quite egalitarian, so in fact contrarians, scientists who hold ideas outside of the mainstream can prosper provided their ideas have some factual basis and use the scientific method (Scientific method: based on existing obervations pose an hypothesis; using new observations or experiments, test the predictions of that hypothesis; on the basis of the new data either reject the hypothesis or modify it to fit the better understanding, or accept that the initial hypothesis was right at which point it becomes a «theory» or explanatory model).

Angert et al. (2004) provide an analysis that rejects this hypothesis relative to other possible mechanisms.

Translating the hypothesis to a numerical model forces you to confront the ambiguities; along the way there are many points where you might reject the hypothesis because of a discovery from first principles (violation of conservation laws, dimensional inconsistency, qualitative failure to replicate the hypothesized behavior mode, absurd behavior in extremes, etc.).

and found that using this latter model all subsequent temperatures were within the 95 % confidence limits i.e. using what you knew back in 1935 and (and note no trend) you'd still be unable to reject the hypothesis at 95 % confidence that the model was persisting.

Their conclusion: «We conclude that there is sufficient evidence in temperature data in the past 130 - 160 years to reject the hypothesis of no warming trend in temperatures at the usual levels of signi... ficance.»

Their conclusion: «there is sufficient evidence in temperature data in the past 130 - 160 years to reject the hypothesis of no warming trend in temperatures at the usual levels of significance»

Table 4 confirms that the parents and adopted children relationship in terms of secure attachment is more in female children than the male ones as the mean values of secure attachment for this category is found more for female children than the male kids at p - value < 0.05 for all outlined selected nations thus, we fail to reject the Hypothesis 13 (H13) i.e. the parents and adopted children relationship in terms of secure attachment is more in female children than the male children, for all selected nations as mentioned in Table 5.

Table 3 reports that the secure attachment always is a more practicing attachment in the parents and adopted children relationship in younger children than the elder ones across the selected nations as the mean values of secure attachment is found more for younger than the elder children at p - value < 0.05 for all outlined selected nations thus, we fail to reject the Hypothesis 9 (H9) i.e. the parents and adopted children relationship in terms of secure attachment is more in younger children than the elder children, for all selected nations as mentioned in Table 5.

Thus, we fail to reject the hypothesis 16 (H16) for Pakistan and US and fail to accept it for China and UK at the stated specifications as stated in hypotheses assessment summary / Table 5.

Not exact matches

It's different than a scientific hypothesis that exists to be examined, proven, refined, or rejected.

It seems that from this hypothesis that form what you say Ludemann and others have rejected the gospel of John as a reliable source of information about the historical Jesus.

Test / Experiment Data can only Accept or Reject a certain null hypothesis based on set criteria.

Repeatable in science refers to the ability to test the same hypothesis, using the same methods (typically by independent researchers), to confirm or reject said hypothesis, e.g. the repeated observation by many, many different researchers of fossils in the correct temporal and morphological relationships within the fossil record (no rabbits in the pre-Cambrian, no humans alongside dinosaurs, etc).

They are two possibilities (out of many) which expressly reject the actual correct hypothesis confirmed in 2012.

Any particular hypothesis can be maintained by rejecting or adjusting other auxiliary hypotheses.9 As Quine puts it, theories form a field which is only loosely tied to the data at its boundaries:

Therefore he rejects this kind of God - hypothesis.

It is the «metaphysical» God of religion, the deus ex machina, the «working hypothesis,» that Bonhoeffer rejects.

Edgar S. Brightman, who had himself been working for many years on the development of a nontraditional view of God, rejected Hartshorne's panentheism but praised other aspects of his view of God.35 Reinhold Niebuhr wrote a brief but very sympathetic review, 36 and John Bennett claimed that Hartshorne's was perhaps the best hypothesis about God available to contemporary theology.37 D. C. Macintosh found the book «exceptionally penetrating, stimulating, and instructive,» but by accusing Hartshorne of being too rationalistic he touched on what has been one of the major differences between Hartshorne and most other Whiteheadian theologians.38