So even the courts — or the Congress, I don't know who it is — are reluctant to give us a more precise definition, and until we have a more precise definition of exactly what we mean, we'll have to interpret it ourselves or our lawyers have to interpret it for us.
Perhaps this is why the highly significant result we found was so intriguing and challenging for all of us researchers to interpret, including ourselves.
Results were interpreted by ourselves, and hence, there might be some discrepancies between statements in the cited references and our own interpretation, for example when adaptive plasticity is claimed but fitness has not been (adequately) measured.
For the lens through which we see ourselves, and thus interpret our lives, will ultimately dictate if we are willing to live our potential.
He made no further explanation; we had to interpret it for ourselves.
If these facts coincided with a reality we could recognise, we might be able to interpret them for ourselves.
We weren't given data just for the sake of it, but so that we could interpret our profile ourselves" (Participant #5).
How do we interpret our own lives and understand ourselves through them?
Certainly, the "mentalistic behaviourism" espoused by Dan Dennett holds that life is no more than mechanism of a particular sort, which we, ourselves mechanisms, interpret as something more: thought is merely behaviour that we think is thought.
In their introduction, the editors admit they've defied Cather's will (in both the legal and personal senses), but assure us they've done so with the best of intentions, hoping to liberate Cather's actual words from the shackles of scholarly paraphrase: "Now we will all be able to read and interpret her letters for ourselves".
