Sentences with phrase «so little evidence»

So little evidence of wrong - doing that they have to sex it up!

What, then, is behind the widespread obsession — with so little evidence — with global warming, and the resulting desire to implement massive new governmental policies?

I also think it is crazy to finger someone as a faker with so little evidence.

You want to make assertions on so little evidence and that shows what you do with AGW.

In their letter, the heads ask: «As so little evidence from this expensive consultancy is actually used in the final report we can only assume that it did not say what you expected (or wanted) it to say?»

Harris discusses the controversies surrounding VAMs, as argued by both VAM proponents and critics, and he contends in the end that «[i] t is difficult to weigh these pros and cons... because we have so little evidence on the [formative] effects of using value - added measures on teaching and learning.»

There is great risk in thinking, with so little evidence, that we know exactly how to design voucher programs to optimize student outcomes.

With so little evidence to go on, paleontologists can't confidently say much more about dinosaur social lives.

«I was, however, quite surprised to find so little evidence for randomness,» he said.

But with so little evidence to hand, Spoor warns against jumping to conclusions about the relationship between the two species.

For example the flying spaghetti monster, you can not prove it is impossible; but, there is so much evidence against it and so little evidence for it that even you might call it impossible

Since there is so much evidence of the moral decay that follows a loss of theistic conviction and so little evidence of the maintenance of civilization apart from this conviction, the burden of proof is on the person who answers Meiklejohn's question in the affirmative.

The thing is, it is very easy to feel sure of the non-existence of a god, when there is so little evidence.

We can only wonder at the credulity of all those intellectuals who staked so much on so little evidence.

Not exact matches

«My biggest concern is people who put serious weight into these rankings, make decisions about where to choose to apply, where to go to school, what tuition to pay when there's so little tangible, evidence - based information that lies below that ranking.»

The early evidence is that there has been relatively little deterioration in consumer expectations so far.

So far, the gauges that economists monitor show little evidence that price increases are on the verge of accelerating.

«Aside from a little squiggle back close to 0 % over the last year or so, there is no evidence that investment is being incented by quantitative easing,» Gross (genie?)

Disproving the existence of something for which there is little evidence is not feasible, so I am content in knowing, that given our current understanding of the universe, it is highly unlikely.

I said it to hotair already, but I will expand it a bit for you: what is evidence for some is not accepted by everyone; just as in a court case, some jurors are convinced with very little evidence while some people can not be convinced of something no matter how much evidence there is... much of this comes from how you were raised and your own personal world view, for many people God does not fit into their world view so whatever evidence there is they close their eyes and say, «No, I don't believe that!»

My above little song and dance I wrote doesn't reflect the mounds of evidence that we have in which I would favor over god, who does not have any evidence of exisiting, so I posit that since you believe that it would make total sense that god would appear in the middle of the woods, drop a watch and then disappear and it actually being possible shows me the delusion in which you have caught yourself in.

In «Whitehead's First Metaphysical Synthesis,» I offer no fresh evidence for the «shift,» so that those who are antecedently persuaded that there is no «shift» will see little reason to alter their opinions.

So Bo, how about doing the christian thing and showing this poor non-believer a little evidence.

First I got him interested in some of my little conspiracy theories and «evidences» — he was already heavily indoctrinated from his parents and upbringing, so it was easy to keep bringing him along — then I got him to post here.

I would point out however... that it is you who is claiming an absolute definition for the word so, perhaps while you wait for my «exegetical evidence», you might provide a little of your own substantiating your usage of the term?

The evidence is so overwhelming that there is very little left to try and prove.

So maybe that goes along with Jeremy's description of great / little faith: It takes greater faith to believe something for which we have no physical evidence.

TWSYF, here is some evidence for evolution that is written a little more for children so you can understand: http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence

So far as our records of his sayings afford us evidence, he gave little if any thought to it.

It was noted there that so far there has been little empirical evidence to clarify the validity both of the criticisms and defense of the paid - time broadcasters.

The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there's little good evidence.

Investigate the evidence yourself, there is nothing at all that truly suggests that the Big Bang happened, the only thing they have used in order to come up with the theory is that in their observances, the Universe appears to be expanding from a central point, it doesn't prove that a Big bang occurred, we know so little about the universe, that we don't even know everything about our own world, and you really believe that our science has figured out the riddle to the beginning of the Universe?

The standard method is to insert a toothpick and wait until it comes out clean, but cocoa powder always leaves a little something on the toothpick, so you have to temper your evidence with judgment, as well as some trial and error.

So I thought I would have a quick look at the evidence and see if there was support for what Mikel Arteta said to Arsenal Player about the Gunners seeming to be punished for every little mistake and not getting rewarded for the things we have done well.

On the outgoing side of things, Wenger admitted early on that he had had to trim his heavy squad, but we have seen little evidence of that so far, with just Wojciech Szczesny the only sale of note so far, and the new Juventus keeper hasn't even been seen at the Emirates for the last two years....

Wenger HAS leant from mistakes in the past, and evidence has shown we are not great at closing a game out with al our strike force still on the pitch - so although it was a little ugly, and tense the 3 points matter the most!

From the evidence so far there is little chance of Alexis suddenly becoming the player last year that refused to be left on the bench — and wanted to play and do his best even when he was injured.

Its only natural that if you spend 4 months staring at a bunch of people from Missisippi then your going to think the first person you see from Alabama is the bell of the ball so I cant fault Condoleeza Rice for trusting the evidence she was given a little too much - a lone blemish on a otherwise pristine record of determining which organizatons pose the biggest risk to others.

Very little research has been done in this area so evidence is mainly clinical reporting and anecdotal.

In fact, there is little hard evidence to suggest that, if the pregnancy is «high - risk», a negative outcome is more likely if a home birth is attempted, so there is an argument for including «high - risk» pregnancies in this type of analysis, and this was attempted as part of this research project.

When you know that the outcome of any piece of careful policy analysis may be little more than a chip to be run across the back of a minister's fingers at the poker table, it does rather take the gloss off making sure all the evidence supporting it is just so.

Because the US is so polarized politically, there is very little chance that a Republican controlled House of Representatives would choose to impeach a Republican President even if there were overwhelming evidence that he had accepted a direct bribe from the Russian government (such as, for hypothetical example, a 19 % interest in the Russian gas company Rosneft) in return for promulgating policies favorable to the Russians, let alone confirmation of the allegations that his Presidential campaign had coordinated election strategy and tactics with the Russians.

On the other hand, the fact that the case is already so far in the public domain might be evidence that arguments used by m» learned friends to try and stuff it back into the obscurity from which it sprang are little more than legal tosh and nonsense.

Many lords rarely attend parliament and do not hold ministerial or party office, so there can be little evidence of their party allegiance, even if they have one.

They'd swept up hundreds of people on the say - so of Afghan warlords and then realised there was no evidence against the vast majority of them, and little prospect of credible trials.

There is little evidence that this has materialised so far, with many elected Chairs standing down after serving one parliament — cynics might say to boost their pension with the additional pay that comes with chairing a Select Committee.

But while Labour may be spending their time talking about aspiration there is so far very little evidence of it on the Labour benches.

And let's not forget that the National Bullying Helpline has only confirmed that it has received one or two phone calls from staff at Number 10 and there is little, if any, real evidence that the prime minister is connected to this at all, so we are largely dealing with a lack of real information.

This dearth of evidence has a number of explanations: serious lingering reactions, if they exist, occur after prolonged use, rarely after a single dose; marijuana has no known medical use, unlike LSD, so scientists have had little reason to study the drug......

Scientists have so far found little evidence that the electrical currents cause serious harm.