Sentences with phrase «supported by any empirical evidence»

The idea that an intelligent being created the universe isn't a theory, it's a hypothesis, an incredibly weak one that isn't supported by any empirical evidence... just faith.

If someone believes something that is supported by empirical evidence, but not technically proven, would you consider that to be faith?

Conservative apologists of old (and their current imitators, like Strobel) operated on the basis of evidentialism — the idea that we can and should believe only what can be supported by empirical evidence.

In the mid-1990s, the American Psychological Association (APA) took a step toward answering them when it issued a list, which it has continued to update, of treatments supported by empirical evidence.

Writing Task The Lesson Level Learning Goal for this task is: Construct and present an oral and written argument supported by empirical evidence and scientific reasoning to support the claim that activities such as deforestation or reforestation can cause changes in the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

It's also really, really suicidal for the industry to say this, and not supported by any empirical evidence.

The constrained leverage theory is supported by empirical evidence.

When theories are both internally consistent and supported by empirical evidence they can be used to calculate new things.

Poor Robert is so dim that you don't understand that it is YOUR claims that are not supported by empirical evidence.

I have concluded that I do not support this premise, because I have not seen anywhere that it is supported by empirical evidence.

An analysis of satellite temperature dataset, through February 2014, identifies only two 5 - year periods having significant warming and five periods that exhibit either zero warming or cooling... the consensus experts» predicted reaction, by the climate, to a surge of human CO2 emissions is not supported by empirical evidence

This is a fantasy not supported by the empirical evidence.

AGW is supported by the empirical evidence in its favour.

If the premise is not supported by empirical evidence, such as from real - time physical observations or reproducible experimentation, it remains an uncorroborated hypothesis.

This is the way that science works (without the interference of politicians): some ideas are supported by empirical evidence and are gradually accepted by the scientific community, while others that lack empirical support are discarded into the dustbin.

I accept the argument that this sounds theoretically sound, but it is not supported by empirical evidence.

The first question is, Can attachment theory be supported by empirical evidence?

Although intuitively appealed and abundantly supported by empirical evidence, this claim was often tested by looking at groups in a static manner.

Not exact matches

The empirical evidence shows that the split does not generally enhance shareholder value, so make sure that the division is supported by the specific circumstances facing your company.

This approach is not only supported by academic research; it is firmly rooted in empirical evidence.

Chad, please get busy with the empirical evidence of any god's existence which is supported by a 2/3 majority of physicists (the dudes who best understand the rules governing our reality).

Empirical: The truth must be supported by sufficient empirical evidence, can not ignore any empirical evidence and can not falsify supporting Empirical: The truth must be supported by sufficient empirical evidence, can not ignore any empirical evidence and can not falsify supporting empirical evidence, can not ignore any empirical evidence and can not falsify supporting empirical evidence and can not falsify supporting evidence.

Empirical evidence increasingly supports the hypothesis that patterns of intrinsic functional connectivity (iFC) are sculpted by a history of evoked coactivation within distinct neuronal networks.

His concern was that the phrase «scientifically proven» should be reserved for claims that are supported by impartial empirical evidence.

Crucially, for many purposes the law also treats as evidence - based a fourth category comprising activities that have a research - based rationale but lack direct empirical support — provided, that is, that they are accompanied by «ongoing efforts to examine the effects» of the activity on important student outcomes.

This is a great opportunity to share how you've made a difference, and add to the body of empirical evidence showing that flipped learning can improve learning outcomes (yes, I for one am assuming this will be supported by the study, but of course that remains to be seen).

This approach is not only supported by academic research; it is firmly rooted in empirical evidence.

The ASPCA's policies are based on empirical evidence and are supported by scientific research that establishes animals» capacity to feel pain and suffer.

«The evidence for the success of TVHR in this study depends on assumptions related to the reproductive physiology and behavioral ecology of domestic cats that, in our view, do not seem to be supported by available empirical evidence and remain to be better understood.»

It's NOT a matter of me being «stubborn», it is a matter of you failing to cite studies providing empirical evidence to support the Myhre et al. estimates of 2xCO2 climate sensitivity (upon which the whole IPCC CAGW house of cards rests), as requested by Jim Cripwell and myself.

And, while you may believe that a high sensitivity has been validated by model simulations, there are many parts of the past record, which speak strongly against this premise — and you have so far been unable to cite the specific empirical evidence to support this hypothesis.

That's very nice but, as requested by Jim and me, please cite specific references to empirical evidence (i.e. data derived from actual physical observations or reproducible experimentation) supporting the Myhre et al. quantitative estimate on CO2 radiative forcing.

My own perspective on this is that it would be a significant departure from earlier work by Trenberth if he really came with empirical evidence (i.e. data based on actual physical observations, rather than simply model simulations) to support his position.

In order for it to advance to generally accepted scientific knowledge it must be supported by empirical scientific evidence (Feynman) and must be falsifiable (Popper).

This was a mandated politically - correct consensus: fat and cholesterol were the enemy and needed to be eliminated - an enemy that turns out was never supported by the actual empirical evidence.

With those caveats stated, it is absolutely true that the consensus «physics» is not supported by the actual empirical climate evidence over more recent years.

While I am unconvinced by the arguments that a loss of biodiversity threatens humanity — largely because the available empirical evidence suggests otherwise — I believe that species extinctions impoverish the world in which we live, and support efforts to protect biodiversity, so long as they are suitably protective -LSB-...]

-- If a scientific claim is involved, check for empirical evidence to support this claim: is the claim supported by actual physical observations or reproducible experimentation?

Jim Cripwell is simply playing the hard line (according to Feynman) by asking those who posit the CAGW (or AGW) hypothesis to present empirical evidence to support it.

In your exchanges with BBD and tempterrain you keep emphasizing that the CAGW premise (which they both support ideologically) is not supported by empirical scientific evidence and that you, hence, remain rationally skeptical of its validity (Feynman) until such evidence can be presented.

You have given me a lot of verbiage and most recently a list of items, which I have gone through point by point to demonstrate to you that you have provided no empirical evidence to support the IPCC CAGW claim (as I outlined it for you, based on the AR4 report).

The truth of the matter is that IPCC's CAGW premise as stated in AR4, which is based on a climate sensitivity of 3.2 C, is not supported by empirical scientific evidence (Feynman)

Anthropogenic climate change is still supported by multiple lines of independent empirical evidence, and nearly every national and international scientific body.

This is also why global warming alarmists try to do their best to quench anything related to the the solar variability → cosmic ray flux → atmospheric ionization → low altitude cloud cover link which by now has ample evidence for support, both empirical and experimental.

As someone said before, there is no validity in any model or theory not supported by real empirical evidence.

The other day, for example, Nic Lewis at Climate Dialogue (linked and praised here) pointed out how some of the TCS estimates downweighted the empirical evidence by having priors with non-negligible probability at high values, with no evidentiary support other than expert opinion.

Because the temperature gradient in a planet's troposphere is the state of thermodynamic equilibrium which the Second Law of Thermodynamics says will evolve, the planet's supported surface temperature is autonomously warmer than its mean radiating temperature, so warm in fact on Earth that we need radiating gases (mostly water vapour) to reduce the gradient and thus cool the surface from a mean of about 300K to about 288K, this being confirmed by empirical evidence (as in the study in my book) which confirms with statistical significance that water vapour cools rather than warms, all these facts thus debunking the greenhouse conjecture.

«There is a dearth of empirical evidence to support any of the contentions made by proponents that NLO [non-lawyer ownership] leads, directly or indirectly, to an increase in access to justice.»

«There is a dearth of empirical evidence to support any of the contentions made by proponents that [non-lawyer ownership] leads, directly or indirectly, to an increase in access to justice,» wrote Kalajdzic in the study released by the association today.

A covariate was included in the multivariate analyses if theoretical or empirical evidence supported its role as a risk factor for obesity, if it was a significant predictor of obesity in univariate regression models, or if including it in the full multivariate model led to a 5 % or greater change in the OR.48 Model 1 includes maternal IPV exposure, race / ethnicity (black, white, Hispanic, other / unknown), child sex (male, female), maternal age (20 - 25, 26 - 28, 29 - 33, 34 - 50 years), maternal education (less than high school, high school graduation, beyond high school), maternal nativity (US born, yes or no), child age in months, relationship with father (yes or no), maternal smoking during pregnancy (yes or no), maternal depression (as measured by a CIDI - SF cutoff score ≥ 0.5), maternal BMI (normal / underweight, overweight, obese), low birth weight (< 2500 g, ≥ 2500 g), whether the child takes a bottle to bed at age 3 years (yes or no), and average hours of child television viewing per day at age 3 years (< 2 h / d, ≥ 2 h / d).