I think the point was raised earlier that «physics» was more
reliable than observation.
Although flawed, it is brilliant, and challenges the notions that we can «know» anything reliably with our senses and seeks to find something more
reliable than observation.
Not exact matches
To my knowledge, neither radon nor any other kind of
observation [other
than foreshocks] has been shown to be a
reliable precursor of earthquakes.
The death toll is 93 % identical to that in the WikiLeaks data, revealing those raw field
observations to be far more
reliable than researchers had suspected.
Such volatility notwithstanding, a track record of achievement gains is a more
reliable predictor of the gains of future students
than classroom
observations or student surveys.
The use of direct
observation as a major component of an overall data collection system for evaluative purposes may be less
reliable than thought.
The AFT and the state education department have only agreed that classroom
observations — which, even under the best of circumstances, are far less
reliable in measuring student performance
than either value - added analysis of student test score performance or even surveys of students — should be the «majority» element in the new evaluation system.
Another piece suggests that teachers should be observed by more
than one person to ensure that
observations are
reliable.
[13] In addition, teacher evaluation systems that include student survey data, which are somewhat correlated with teachers» student growth measures, [14] are stronger, more
reliable, and more valid
than those that rely solely on administrator reports and
observations.
Another important finding of the study was that student surveys produced more
reliable results from year to year
than did objective measures of student achievement gains or classroom
observations.53 In other words, student survey results were more stable.
First
observation: The test is modestly less
reliable than flipping a coin if it is reported fairly, year after year.
But if you mean by «global warming» all the crap about renewable energy and sealevel rise and «acidification» and the end of civilsation as we know it and 50 million climate refugees and the end of glaciers by 2035 and hockey sticks and «unprecedented» and drowning polies and the whole tranche of wacko ideas that have got attached to the simple climatical
observation that its a bit warmer
than it was in 1912, then I'm very very sceptical and there are is very little
reliable evidence for any of it.
Sea surface temperature has been consistently higher during the past three decades
than at any other time since
reliable observations began in 1880.
Hmm, well referenced contemporary
observations are more
reliable than interpreting a lump of old wood... tonyb
100 years to today would be records from actual
observation, using modern methods, and instruments like thermometers, and are considered a lot more accurate and
reliable than proxy records.
This bizarre notion that models are somehow more
reliable than empirical
observation is NOT just a climate science thing.
This hypothesis has yet to be validated by empirical data based on actual physical
observations or reproducible experimentation and has not yet successfully withstood any attempts at falsification, so (unlike your example of «evolution») remains an uncorroborated hypothesis, rather
than «
reliable scientific knowledge» (or, even less, «settled science», despite what Gavin has stated in the past).