Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The claim that all assertions are provisional and thus open to revision in light of new evidence is widely taken for granted in the natural sciences. [ 12 ] Furthermore, Popper defended his critical rationalism as a normative and methodological theory, that explains how objective , and thus mind-independent, knowledge ought to work. [ 13 ]
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), was a United States Supreme Court case which held that plaintiffs must present a "plausible" cause of action. Alongside Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly (and together known as Twiqbal), Iqbal raised the threshold which plaintiffs needed to meet.
The aphorism "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", according to psychologist Patrizio Tressoldi, "is at the heart of the scientific method, and a model for critical thinking, rational thought and skepticism everywhere". [3] [4] [5] It has also been described as a "fundamental principle of scientific skepticism". [6]
Dixon v. Alabama, 294 F.2d 150 (5th Cir. 1961) was a landmark 1961 U.S. federal court decision that spelled the end of the doctrine that colleges and universities could act in loco parentis to discipline or expel their students. [1] It has been called "the leading case on due process for students in public higher education". [2]
Plausible reasoning can be used to fill in implicit premises in incomplete arguments. Plausible reasoning is commonly based on appearances from perception. Stability is an important characteristic of plausible reasoning. Plausible reasoning can be tested, and by this means, confirmed or refuted.
The Fifth Circuit gained appellate jurisdiction over the United States District Court for the Canal Zone. On October 1, 1981, under Pub. L. 96–452, the Fifth Circuit was split: Alabama, Georgia, and Florida were moved to the new Eleventh Circuit. On March 31, 1982, the Fifth Circuit lost jurisdiction over the Panama Canal Zone, which was ...
Second, only a complaint that states a plausible claim for relief survives a motion to dismiss. Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief will, as the Court of Appeals observed, be a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.
Internal validity is the extent to which a piece of evidence supports a claim about cause and effect, within the context of a particular study. It is one of the most important properties of scientific studies and is an important concept in reasoning about evidence more generally.