I believe you are guilty of that old phony trick of trying to make
the theory fit the facts, when in fact they do not.
Not exact matches
Creationists refuse to subject their «
theories» to peer reviews, because they know they don't
fit the
facts.
He explained his findings in nontechnical terms in Slate magazine: «Although doubt will always remain about what causes a change in social custom, the technology - shock
theory does
fit the
facts.
First, you seem to not understand what a «
theory» is (since you BOLD
theory) A
theory in Science is a set of principles that
fit the
facts that we know of.
The human factor has to do with
fitting the two together, making judgments about which general relations obtain among the sensations, subsuming
facts under
theories.
They discuss evolution and how it can in
fact fit in with what the Bible tells us, and to be honest I quite like their
theory.
As Montgomery puts it: «Science and theology form and test their respective
theories in the same way; the scientific theorizer attempts objectively to formulate conceptual Gestalts (hypotheses,
theories, laws) capable of rendering Nature intelligible, and the theologian endeavors to provide conceptual Gestalts (doctrines, dogmas) which will «
fit the
facts» and properly reflect the norms of Holy Scripture.»
Science is based on make
theories to
fit the
facts.
So although this
theory is compelling and seems to
fit the context of Matthew 12:31 - 32, the
fact that it is impossible to live out in real life indicates that it is not the proper understanding.
The self - interest
theory of ethics
fits neither the
facts of experience nor the metaphysical view of Whitehead.
Crossan's work
fits well with a widespread disinclination to dwell on Jesus» death, either in
fact or
theory.
The
facts (such as they are) I'm afraid, don't
fit the
theory of a greedy board, businessmen (and women) though they are.
You have a nice
theory, but you are moulding the
facts about that period to
fit your
theory.
In
fact, the Spitzer results did not
fit well with any existing
theory of how planets form.
These are experimental
facts, and these
facts fit one
theory: the multiverse
theory.
The
fact that the researchers saw differences in brain structure after just 30 days
fits well with existing
theories about premature infants» brain development, Stromswold says.
Their beliefs are so powerful that any factual data that contradicts this view would be dismissed with the outlook, «If the
facts don't
fit the
theory, change the
facts.»
Finally, several alternative explanations for falling relative quality do not
fit all of the empirical
facts as well as the
theory presented in this research.
We do live in a society with norms about what we can and can not share, what we can and can not do, but as Einstein once said: «if the
facts don't
fit the
theory, change the
facts.»
The discrepancies between NASA and other data sources can't help but make us consider Einstein's advice: «If the
facts don't
fit the
theory, change the
facts.»
I find most new
facts that pop up can be
fitted into my
theory with a little bit of wriggling, particularly as numbers seem in short supply in many of these «oh my Gard, the sky is falling» headlines that journalists love so much, but I must admit that this one has me scratching my head.
Near as I can tell, his
theory has a better
fit to the
facts than the S.N.s «out there» and stuff traveled to get here.
The
theory represents the only scientific
theory that
fits all the
facts as we understand them today.
For
facts making the CAGW religion irrelevant, see David Stockwell's A Sea Change for Climate Science where he shows his solar accumulative
theory providing a better
fit than CO2 global warming.
Fitting facts to a
theory rather than the other way around.
The «started in 1950» meme is an ad hoc invention to
fit the
facts to the
theory instead of
fitting the
theory to the
facts.
As far as I can see the
theory fits the known
facts and ongoing observations of the real world as opposed to the speculations of climate modelling.
The
theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming (aka Human Induced Climate Change) does not
fit the following
facts: (1) Modern statistical techniques show that there has been no significant change in global average temperature for the last 166 years.
The
facts are not
fitting the
theory nor backing the scare, so the media simply suppress them.»
That said, my
theory is certainly not proven either (though it does
fit all the
facts)- and if we do experience (or can forcast convincingly) global warming that is annoying to humans we should look at CO2 reduction or insolation reduction (there are many methods available, all need to be explored without bias).
This is like the inaccurate, interchangeable, use of carbon dioxide and carbon when the former is a gas and the latter a solid or the change from global warming to climate change when the
facts no longer
fit the
theory.
When
facts don't
fit into your globl warming plan they're ignored, work into the global warming
theory, called «speed bumps» in global warming, or simply dismissed as idiotic.
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).
There springs up, also, an unconscious pressing of the
theory to make it
fit the
facts, and a pressing of the
facts to make them
fit the
theory.
And when a factual scenario presents novel or troublesome
facts that seem not to
fit established law, students are taught to engage in rule synthesis.207 In other words, the legal writing classroom is rich with opportunities to practice deduction and induction in ways that incorporate both
theory and practical application.
This approach presupposes that one
theory, model, or program can be used to understand and respond to the needs of all young women in the juvenile justice system.109 The prevalence of such one - size -
fits - all approaches to female offenders may, in
fact, explain why little progress has been made on understanding the etiology of female offending.
The
facts as we know them today do not
fit the «absence of law» or «barbarian'
theory underpinning the colonial reception of the common law of England... Yet the supposedly barbarian nature of Indigenous people provided the common law of England with the justification for denying them their traditional rights and interests in land, as Lord Sumner speaking for the Privy Council said in In re Southern Rhodesia (60)(1919) AC 211, at pp 233 - 234: