The horizontal-vertical individualism-collectivism model has received empirical support and has been used to explore patterns within cultures.
In England and Wales, as well as in Hong Kong, the term offence means the same thing as, and is interchangeable with, the term crime, They are further split into: Many different causes and correlates of crime have been proposed with varying degree of empirical support.
However, the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that creation science fails to qualify as scientific because it lacks empirical support, supplies no tentative hypotheses, and resolves to describe natural history in terms of scientifically untestable supernatural causes.
The National Academy of Sciences states that "the claims of creation science lack empirical support and cannot be meaningfully tested" and that "creation science is in fact not science and should not be presented as such in science classes."
(The latter process was later called Lamarckism.) These ideas were condemned by established naturalists as speculation lacking empirical support.
Moreover, empirical support for the domain-specific theory stems almost entirely from performance on variations of the Wason selection task which is extremely limited in scope as it only tests one subtype of deductive reasoning.
ID is a form of creationism that lacks empirical support and offers no testable or tenable hypotheses, and is therefore not science.
A number of later studies by Rushton and other researchers have argued that there is empirical support for the theory, though these studies have been criticized.
There have been attempts to provide empirical support for the view that Jewish food laws have an overarching health benefit or purpose.
Empirical support from studies of the general population is inconsistent, and a study of uranium miners found a correlation between radon exposure and chronic lymphocytic leukemia.
Experiments have provided empirical support for the existence of aversive racism.
Such theories are described in such a way that scientific tests should be able to provide empirical support for it, or empirical contradiction ("falsify") of it. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge, in contrast to more common uses of the word "theory" that imply that something is unproven or speculative (which in formal terms is better characterized by the word hypothesis).
The traditional view of adoptive parenting received empirical support from a Princeton University study of 6,000 adoptive, step, and foster families in the United States and South Africa from 1968 to 1985;
Sociologists Bromley and Hadden note a lack of empirical support for claimed consequences of having been a member of a "cult" or "sect", and substantial empirical evidence against it. These include the fact that the overwhelming proportion of people who get involved in NRMs leave, most short of two years;
Studies of depleted levels of monoamine neurotransmitters show an association with depression and other psychiatric disorders, but "... it should be questioned whether 5-HT [serotonin] represents just one of the final, and not the main, factors in the neurological chain of events underlying psychopathological symptoms...." Simplistic "chemical imbalance" explanations for mental disorders have never received empirical support;
Neuroscientist Simon LeVay said that while Bem's theory was arranged in a "believable temporal order", that it ultimately "lacks empirical support".
Theoretical rationality has a formal component that reduces to logical consistency and a material component that reduces to empirical support, relying on our inborn mechanisms of signal detection and interpretation.
Prior to the decline of NLP, scientific researchers began testing its theoretical underpinnings empirically, with research indicating a lack of empirical support for NLP's essential theories.
Tomasz Witkowski attributes this to a declining interest in the debate as the result of a lack of empirical support for NLP from its proponents.
While some NLP practitioners have argued that the lack of empirical support is due to insufficient research testing NLP, the consensus scientific opinion is that NLP is pseudoscience and that attempts to dismiss the research findings based on these arguments "[constitute]s an admission that NLP does not have an evidence base and that NLP practitioners are seeking a post-hoc credibility."