Evidence in sentence

3602 examples of Evidence in a sentence

Well, I am here to tell you that scientific evidence says neither of those assumptions is true.

CA: Well look, just to be skeptical for a minute, I mean, this is amazing, but isn't most of the evidence so far that sensory substitution works, not necessarily that sensory addition works?

Many years ago, the physicist Enrico Fermi asked that, given the fact that our universe has been around for a very long time and we expect that there are many planets within it, we should have found evidence for alien life by now.

And you know, it's getting worse, because we won't be able to find the physical evidence of where we are coming from on this planet, and the reason being is that anything that is older than four billion years is gone.

And we might be able to find evidence of our own origin in the most unlikely place, and this place in Mars.

Now, something I've got very interested in is different kinds of laughter, and we have some neurobiological evidence about how human beings vocalize that suggests there might be two kinds of laughs that we have.

In the past, there's been a little bit of training of the courts, but they get crappy evidence from the police, or a little police intervention that has to do with narcotics or terrorism but nothing to do with treating the common poor person with excellent law enforcement, so it's about pulling that all together, and you can actually have people in very poor communities experience law enforcement like us, which is imperfect in our own experience, for sure, but boy, is it a great thing to sense that you can call 911 and maybe someone will protect you.

Let's look at the evidence.

Well, the biologists get furious with me for saying that, because we have absolutely no evidence for life beyond Earth yet.

There's evidence that that unconscious bias exists, but we all just have to acknowledge that it's there and then look at ways that we can move past it so that we can look at solutions.

When he went to trial, the central piece of evidence was that he paid for these weapons, when in truth, these transcripts show how the FBI orchestrated someone who was essentially mentally ill and broke to get money to then pay for weapons that they could then charge him in a conspiracy for.

In this particular case, given the evidence that's so far come out, it suggests the FBI made it possible for these guys to move along in a plan to go to Syria when they were never close to that in the first place.

So scientists care whether evidence is randomly sampled or not, but what does that have to do with babies?

So do babies care whether the tiny bit of evidence they see is plausibly representative of a larger population?

But to my mind the magical thing, and what I want you to pay attention to, is the contrast between these two conditions, because the only thing that differs between these two movies is the statistical evidence the babies are going to observe.

The really interesting question is what happens when we show babies exactly the same thing, and we can ensure it's exactly the same because we have a secret compartment and we actually pull the balls from there, but this time, all we change is the apparent population from which that evidence was drawn.

That is not plausibly randomly sampled evidence.

That evidence suggests that maybe Hyowon was deliberately sampling the blue balls.

On the vertical axis, you'll see the percentage of babies who squeezed the ball in each condition, and as you'll see, babies are much more likely to generalize the evidence when it's plausibly representative of the population than when the evidence is clearly cherry-picked.

So even though babies are going to see much less evidence for squeaking, and have many fewer actions to imitate in this one ball condition than in the condition you just saw, we predicted that babies themselves would squeeze more, and that's exactly what we found.

So 15-month-old babies, in this respect, like scientists, care whether evidence is randomly sampled or not, and they use this to develop expectations about the world: what squeaks and what doesn't, what to explore and what to ignore.

And it starts with a problem of confounded evidence that all of us have, which is that we are part of the world.

But the important point here is it provides a little bit of evidence that the problem isn't with the toy, it's with the person.

This time, babies are going to see the toy work and fail in exactly the same order, but we're changing the distribution of evidence.

On the vertical axis, you'll see the distribution of children's choices in each condition, and you'll see that the distribution of the choices children make depends on the evidence they observe.

It's a story about minds and not brains, and in particular, it's a story about the kinds of computations that uniquely human minds can perform, which involve rich, structured knowledge and the ability to learn from small amounts of data, the evidence of just a few examples.

In the 1880s, anthropologists began to collect them as evidence of American Indian religion.

There were other cases in which there was no evidence of an injury whatsoever, and yet, still the patient hurt.

And the thing I realized that really blew my mind is, almost everything we think we know about addiction is wrong, and if we start to absorb the new evidence about addiction, I think we're going to have to change a lot more than our drug policies.

And a core part of addiction, I came to think, and I believe the evidence suggests, is about not being able to bear to be present in your life.

Related words