Sentences with phrase «valid criticism on»

We've long known we were open to valid criticism on this point.

Note that this an automated program, so unless you have a valid criticism on the algorithm, you can't simply attribute this adjustment as a reseracher's bias.

Not exact matches

It is based, as Kenney's informed hectoring reminds us, on perfectly valid criticism of the Havana regime.

Second, the article is about how their xtian beliefs on s @x, specifically, influenced the situation so criticism of xtianity as a whole is perfectly valid.

In an interesting chapter on the Marxian theme of religion as the «opiate of the people», Jose Miguez Bonino welcomes the criticism «as a valid warning against the self - deception and confusion which so easily creep into a political programme of any sort when it is clothed in religious language».

On the other hand, if the criticism is valid then the church should listen and make changes.

If you want to go beyond that and consider whether or not the criticism was valid in an ethical or moral sense, I think you should consider that this woman made a public demonstration designed to draw attention and then posted a photo of it on the internet along with her own opinions about formula being poison (clearly a criticism of anyone who feeds it to her baby).

We feel that whilst valid concerns are being raised about the potential mis implementation of diet advice in cancer cases, the extent of the personal attacks on Mrs Daly are bordering on harassment and the content of much of the criticism is generic in nature and uninformed with regard to any specific cases Mrs Daly is working with.

Obviously the question of why we're bothering to spend the money and time on these would be a valid criticism.

Based on all the data on the depths of the nation's education crisis — including the fact that three out of every 10 fourth - graders are functionally illiterate as well as how traditional policies and practices keep laggard teachers in classrooms — you would think valid criticism, internal and external, would be welcomed.

The other valid criticism you mentioned is based on the observation that some traditionally - published authors receive advances that don't ever earn out, thus they are effectively receiving higher - than - 25 % net royalty rates and our spreadsheets and pie charts don't capture that.

Furthermore if having a tacked on multiplayer is a valid criticism, why is having a tacked on singleplayer not?

Indeed, one valid criticism of the recent papers on transient constraints is precisely that the simple models used do not have sufficient decadal variability!

The SMC's emphasis on «expert opinion», reflects the «values» recently evinced by Lewandowsky, that debate about the climate and criticism of his own work is valid only when «addressed through proper channels» — it «should take place in the scientific literature».

Alec Rawls, on the other hand, points out that if his criticism of Chapter 7 of the AR5 is valid, and it has been accepted by the authors of Chapter 7, then the value of climate sensitivity estimated by Nic Lewis is a MAXIMUM value, which could be less depending on the effect of clouds.

(If reviewer criticisms are judged to be valid, journals will insist on changes as a condition of publication.)

If there is to be a valid criticism of the «97 %» as shown in the Cook paper, then the criticism [today] would be that the 97 % is based on somewhat dated information [i.e. being on papers averaging about 10 years old by now].

If those criticisms are valid the scientific community just comes to understand that and move on by publishing new work pushing a different theory.

In recent discussion of the Weblog 2007 Awards, several commenters at other blogs have argued that our criticisms of the Mannian parlor tricks have been «thoroughly refuted and discarded by climatologists, published in a credible journal»; that «other professionals in the field who also have «looked in great detail at the problem at hand» and have come to the conclusion that rather than McIntyre's findings being «valid and relevant», they instead have found them to be «without statistical and climatological merit»; that CA «fluffed on the whole hockey stick thing».

However, as I had told Doug originally, I think his criticism of the OxCal and Calib calibration methods is actually valid: I just think that imperfect understanding rather than misconduct on the part of Bronk Ramsey (and of other radiocarbon calibration experts) is involved.

Just because Judith's many criticisms over the years of the IPCC, the AGU, and others on the alarmist side of the fence have not echoed and / or matched word - for - word your own strident (and counter-productive, IMHO) Johnny - one - note clamouring does not make them any less valid.

In fact, in a very contrite reply to a comment on their paper, they not only agreed with the commenter that his criticism was potentially valid but they pointed out that there were other even more important deficiencies in their model.

You are quick to denigrate the qualifications of people you know nothing about, failed to look at the surface station web site, offered some - what valid criticisms and then harped on them... and people who are NOT trolls do NOT invent a screen name that looks like a real name.

Had my discussion focused on the more than 20 million people displaced by this flood, your criticism would have been valid.

In a recent comment posted to a thread on Reddit, one of the chief architects of Ethereum, Vitalik Buterin, shared what he believes to be the 7 most valid criticisms of Ethereum: