Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
It may be the case that several sufficient conditions, when taken together, constitute a single necessary condition (i.e., individually sufficient and jointly necessary), as illustrated in example 5. Example 1 "John is a king" implies that John is male. So knowing that John is a king is sufficient to knowing that he is a male. Example 2
Truth has two meanings that are not always separated: that which is in accordance with fact, and; a fact or belief that is accepted as true.; Facts established by inquiry, or a verifiably accurate statement is the meaning of truth normally used by the natural sciences and in legal contexts.
Hasty generalization is an informal fallacy of faulty generalization, which involves reaching an inductive generalization based on insufficient evidence [3] —essentially making a rushed conclusion without considering all of the variables or enough evidence.
In this case, because the null hypothesis could be true or false, in some contexts this is interpreted as meaning that the data give insufficient evidence to make any conclusion, while in other contexts, it is interpreted as meaning that there is not sufficient evidence to support changing from a currently useful regime to a different one.
For example, oxygen is necessary for fire. But one cannot assume that everywhere there is oxygen, there is fire. A condition X is sufficient for Y if X, by itself, is enough to bring about Y. For example, riding the bus is a sufficient mode of transportation to get to work.
Tests of sufficiency in biology are used to determine if the presence of an element permits the biological phenomenon to occur. In other words, if sufficient conditions are met, the targeted event is able to take place. However, this does not mean that the absence of a sufficient biological element inhibits the biological event from occurring.
This is often referred to as "doxastic justification". In contrast to this, having sufficient evidence for a true belief but coming to hold this belief based on superstition is a case of mere "propositional justification". [1] [33] [34] Such a belief may not amount to knowledge even though the relevant evidence is possessed. A particularly ...
[22] [23] This means the proponent of evidence must "produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is." [ 22 ] [ 23 ] For example, if the prosecution in a murder case wishes to present a photograph of the crime scene to the jury, they must verify that the photograph is an accurate representation ...