Sentences with phrase «wrong conclusions from»

It is certainly possible I have gotten the wrong impression by reading the wrong things into Evernote's statements and drawing the wrong conclusions from a few errors and omissions.

The media (and some pundits and politicians) often mis - summarize, draw the wrong conclusions from, twist, or mislead the public using such letters.

Sam Basso: They drew the wrong conclusions from the data.

Unfortunately, too many investors derive the wrong conclusions from examining resources like this.

Good «ol faux Christian Bob, once again drawing the wrong conclusion from basic information, and doing so on purpose.

However, I've sometimes drawn the wrong conclusion from this, believing that I just need to never get that angry or stressed in the first place.

Given your stellar history of drawing the wrong conclusion from basic information, source please?

I think folks are drawing entirely the wrong conclusion from Dyson's skepticism.

Edward Greisch: I get the sense you are taking away the wrong conclusion from this article.

Has Zimbabwe's new president hit on the key for agricultural success or is he drawing the wrong conclusion from a fair - weather harvest?

Without this data, one could easily have drawn the exactly wrong conclusion from the dip in sea level during the 2010 - 2011 La Nina.

If our expectations are wrong, we can easily draw the wrong conclusion from the data.

Not exact matches

Thats like saying «I commend the court for coming to the conclusion murder is wrong, and starting from now on, we will punish those commiting murder.»

the observable phenomenon was not wrong, just their conclusions drawn from their limited views.

The process worked incrementally and backward, not toward faith but away from nihilism, fueled by the rising conviction that the conclusion I had drawn long ago was wrong.

Since the book became Scripture on this basis, should the conclusion that this was wrong lead Protestants to remove it from the New Testament?

While it might be true to say that Intelligent Design (ID) was not given much credence by the delegates, it would be quite wrong to draw any conclusions from this regarding the value of ID research.

Mind you that wasn't the only thing you said in that particular thread that led me to the conclusion that attempting to have any real dialogue with you was pointless and I was already well on the way to that point from the countless encounters of you avoiding questions and offering nothing more to support your stance than «I'm right and you're wrong» or «read it again, it's clear».

It would be wrong, however, to leap from a reading of these words to the conclusion that Buber, like Toynbee explicitly and Berrigan implicitly, held that the Jews emulated the Nazis, harboring and executing a plan for the extermination of a people.

talk about skewing the stats to fit your own conclusions... this is like a slap in the face to every real Arsenal fan... have you no shame, have you no dignity, have you no sense of right from wrong... if you think everything was so well orchestrated why is everyone and their brother laughing at the way in which we conduct business both on and off the field... either you're a paid hack or a delusional buffoon... regardless you can't be a genuine Arsenal fan because the difficulties facing this club having been going on for years and this latest episode in our pathetic recent history is but a glaring reminder of how far we have fallen... I'm not going to waste my time discrediting every single ridiculous statement you made in your love letter to Wenger, but if you write another article I will gladly expose you for the fraud you truly are... this club is in desperate need of a serious cleansing and for you to try and package this dog and pony show as a well - oiled machine is a direct insult to anyone who has supported this team during the supposed «lean» years... the deceptive and disrespectful manner in which this organization has treated it's fans is an abomination to supporters everywhere and for you to even try to justify their actions is akin to saying just shut - up and keep filling our pockets... so please crawl back under whatever stone you crawled out from under and think carefully before you spew this type of propaganda ever again

Picture this, we don't come out of the gate firing on all cylinders, Wenger speaks of how there wasn't enough time for the first - teamers to build chemistry, several key players aren't even playing because of Wenger's utterly ridiculous policy regarding players who played in the Confed Cup or the under21s and the boo - birds have returned in full flight... if these things were to happen, which is quite possible considering the Groundhog Day mentality of this club, how long do you think it will take for Wenger to recant his earlier statements regarding Europa... I would suggest that it's these sorts of comments from Wenger which are often his undoing... why would any manager worth his weight in salt make such a definitive statement before the season has even started... why would any manager who fashions himself an educated man make such pronouncements before even knowing what his starting 11 will be come Friday, let alone on September 1st... why would any manager who has a tenuous relationship with a great many supporters offer up such a potentially contentious talking point considering how many times his own words have come back to bite him in the ass... I think he does this because he doesn't care what you or I think, in fact he's more than slightly infuriated by the very idea of having to answer to the likes of you and me... that might have been acceptable during his formative years in charge, when the fans were rewarded with an scintillating brand of football and success felt like a forgone conclusion, but this new Wenger led team barely resembles that team of ore... whereas in times past we relished a few words from our seemingly cerebral manager, in recent times those words have been replaced by a myriad of excuses, a plethora of infuriating stories about who he could have signed but didn't and what can only be construed as outright fabrications... it's kind of funny that when we want some answers, like during the whole contract debacle of last season, we can't get an intelligent word out of him, but when we just what him to show his managerial acumen through his actions, we can't seem to get him to shut - up... I beg you to prove me wrong Arsene

For various reasons, it might be wrong to draw too many conclusions from the two most recent encounters — the FA Cup final, which went Arsenal's way, and the recent friendly in Beijing, which the Blues won with great ease.

The best thing that can be done, at least from my perspective in terms of the best thing that could have been done for me, is to gently try to hold mom into the feelings of being terrified, the feelings of wondering what went wrong, because there is a tendency to go straight from «big bad thing happened»... to «in conclusion» with no description of the lived experience.

A new study from the University of Iowa finds that once people reach a conclusion, they aren't likely to change their minds, even when new information shows their initial belief is likely wrong and clinging to that belief costs real money.

Armando D'Agostino of the University of Milan in Italy thinks that the strangeness of dreams resembles psychosis, because individuals are disconnected from reality and have disrupted thought processes that lead to wrong conclusions.

By the magic of marketing, they're not exactly wrong, in the sense that salicylic acid can be «sourced» from willow bark extract, but this leads to the unsuspecting consumer's incorrect conclusion that the willow bark extract in the product is the equivalent of salicylic acid.

Please read my Forks Over Knives review for more information on what's wrong with the conclusions drawn from Campbell's casein / aflatoxin research, and if you'd rather look at peer - reviewed research than the words of some random internet blogger, see my collection of scientific papers based on the China Study data that contradict the claims in Campbell's book.

Conclusion: the feeling comes from within and does not reflect anything actually wrong in how you look.

But that doesn't stop many of us from leaping to the wrong conclusions about people.

The wrong conclusion is: I'm in the paper business, paper keeps me essential, therefore I must do all I can to retard the transition from paper to digital.

That's the wrong conclusion to draw from such a successful sale.

It's not that Gavin's argument is wrong, but rather that it omits separate, independent evidence that reinforces the same conclusion from a very different angle.

When we expect the null hypothesis will not be rejected even if it's wrong, what conclusions can be drawn from a result which fails to reject the null?

You should take it as a matter of faith that science is partial, conditional, provisional and quite often wrong when reaching overarching conclusions from limited and often conflicting data.

Unfortunately, the conclusions from the large set are also usually wrong.

New information from the NOAA IG shows that a published conclusion from PSU investigation is wrong.

My conclusion: The Court's reading of the Clean Air Act in Massachusetts v. EPA (2007) and the EPA's reading of the Act in regulating greenhouse gas emissions from «major» stationary sources can not both be right — and both may be wrong!

Even though from what you've said you must agree Patrick Micheal's claims about the significance of the lost data are hideously wrong and so by extension the VERY dramatic conclusion he spreads will misinform anyone reading them.

Typifying these wrong conclusions is this from climate solutions at link below: http://www.climatesolutions.org/article/1478742134-arc-moral-universe-still-bends-towards

ALL the conclusions you draw from that limited study are unwarranted — and, from other work, flat wrong.

For individuals, the trick is to be your own devil's advocate: to think through how your favored conclusions might be misguided; to ask yourself how you might be wrong, or how things might turn out differently from what you expect.

When people (climate also) go wretchedly wrong is that they fail to produce a sequence of rational steps where one conclusion follows from another.

Presumably because of his role as the new president of the Royal Society... I had been quite hopeful that the program might offer some new insights, but in the event it seemed to be little more than an exercise in institutional dishonesty, although very skilfully done: placing unrelated comments on TSI and cosmic rays together for the audience to draw the wrong conclusions; putting up Delingpole — plus a brief comment from Fred Singer — as representative of the scientific case against alarmism; shamelessly bringing to bear the authority of Newton and Darwin; and so on.

But, from what I've read on this blog and others, there seems to be almost zero «skeptics» who having jumped to wild conclusions early on, have then had the decency to say «oops, might have been a bit hasty there — sorry, got it wrong».

Rather what I'm saying by analogy is regardless of whether the math is right or wrong, the conclusion itself doesn't follow because the inference from low to high resolution only works in one direction and Marcott has the direction reversed.

[This is the wrong place for an extended discussion of programming in climatology, especially as you seem to have drawn your conclusions from limited information.

Again, this is an inductive conclusion that may be wrong - but it is unlikely to be so and as previously noted, errors from neutral to endorsement have been shown to be outnumbered by errors in the reverse direction.

It's obviously the wrong time of year to come to any conclusions about recovery from last year's collapse of perennial ice.

I thought his preference was based on the conclusions he could draw from it (avoiding stuff that gave the «wrong» message), rather than a rigorous scientific analysis.

However, I do completely agree that they approached their conclusions and research from the wrong perspective.