Sentences with phrase «angels on the head of a pin»

Not the literalist, angels on the head of a pin nit - picking and I'm - right - you're - wrong - you're - damned «seriously» that I ran smack dab into.

even that debate about the angels on the head of a pin had some merit (though actually I think it was the point of a needle).

It's like angels on the head of a pin.

This chicken - egg (or angels on the head of a pin) discussion doesn't find the real «all of the above» we all so desperately need.

Because the difference between it and zero is so small that arguing about it is «angels on the head of a pin» stuff.

Combine these with the extremely poor precipitation data for the entire globe and you have another example of climate science being a modern equivalent of the number of angels on the head of a pin.

The closest thing the discussion seems to relate to is that of an earnest debate regarding the dance style of angels on heads of pins.

Why sitting over here in a corner with a readership of a fraction of theirs counting angels on a head of a pin, I do not understand.

Needless to say this has been deeply disturbing to an «ordinary Joe» (with 5 grandchildren) who has made an effort to understand the science and the politics that underlie the climate change «debate», especially since my country has become such an important player in the fossil fuel business with its tarsands and pipeline industries that affect us all, so I've tried to find out more about Judith Curry's recent contributions to the debate, not so much the hair - splitting, angels on the head of a pin, esoteric dissections of graphs and stats that I see here on your website but the ethical stance that you take on the larger issue of «killing» the IPCC and all it represents.

That's what distinguishes science from medieval speculations about «angels on the head of a pin».

Yebbut data can be argued over in the same way as angels on the head of a pin.

Not exact matches

They're far too busy with helping others, caring for others, providing food and comfort for others, and serving others to spend time worrying about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

As long as we're already talking fiction, could you do your next article about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

I'm unconvinced that any of you know how many angels dance on the head of a pin and really, I don't care.

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

The logic which religion uses is based on a belief, and is the equivalent of determining how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

And again, this whole discussion largely devolves into «how many angels are dancing on the head of a pin».

That was written in a time when it was true, before Christians argued over how many angels can fit on the head of a pin, whether to use grape juiceor wine in the communion class, and whether women should wear doilies on their head when they pray, and a myriad of other stupid destructive timewasting ideologies designed to keep us running around with 1 foot nailed to the floor.

I'd prefer not to read your blather, Russ, since all of it is pretty much about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

On a side note, I love to laugh out loud at this issue when Xtians argue over how many angels dance on the head of a piOn a side note, I love to laugh out loud at this issue when Xtians argue over how many angels dance on the head of a pion the head of a pin.

Every time there was some ridiculous little quibble over theology or doctrine (like how many angels could dance on the head of a pin), there'd be a schism, and 2 different groups would go their separate ways, each one convinced it had a lock on God's absolute truth and that their opponents with heathen heretic apostate sinners doomed (DOOMED, I tell you!)

People who waste time arguing about it are like arguing with those asserting angels dance on the head of a pin.

End the ugly acts of submission and the debates over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

We may not sit around endlessly discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but we do spend our lives on religious and supposedly Biblical discussions and investigations of similar import.

The bickering, name calling, and argumentation on how many angels can dance on the head of a pin does not draw people to Christ.

Why do you continue to try to prove that a certain number of angels can dance on the head of a pin?

They don't care how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Remember how many angels can sit on the head of a pin.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission's latest action regarding fuel discounts («Coles, Woolies fight ACCC over fuel discounts», AFR, February 25) is about as relevant as determining how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

But rather than wondering how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, try to think about how many times Angels have made the cover (10 times for the L.A. / California / Anaheim Angels, two times for jockey Angel Cordero and another four for Elle Macpheangels can dance on the head of a pin, try to think about how many times Angels have made the cover (10 times for the L.A. / California / Anaheim Angels, two times for jockey Angel Cordero and another four for Elle MacpheAngels have made the cover (10 times for the L.A. / California / Anaheim Angels, two times for jockey Angel Cordero and another four for Elle MacpheAngels, two times for jockey Angel Cordero and another four for Elle Macpherson).

This discussion reminds me of philosophers of the Middle Ages debating how many angels could stand on the head of a pin.

But there is a more vexing concern for some of us, even those of us used to imponderables such as the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin: where do you find a busload of nuns?

The real battle over the reform of American public education will not be depend on whether Beltway players and the outlets that cover and opine about them (including this publication) argue about the equivalent of how many angels dance on the heads of pins.

It might see as though I'm arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Which side would you weigh in on (or are we arguing about angels dancing on the head of a pin)?

He has presented his work in many solo exhibitions in the historical Athenian gallery «Nees Morphes» and his work has been included in numerous group shows, among which are the emblematic exhibition Apperto 93 in the XVL Venice Biennial in 1993 and the 2nd Athens Biennial Heaven (How Many Angels Can Dance On The Head Of A Pin, curated by Christopher Marinos) in 2009.

Kevin Anderson @KevinClimate Apr 30 Our mitigation community, from academics to NGOs, are now little more than well - meaning angels inventing elaborate new dances to perform on the head of a pin.

Scientist love to discuss how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

We can now argue about whether the GH warming has reached «equilibrium» over the past 150 years or whether there is still some GH warming «hidden in the pipeline», but IMO that is like arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

Meanwhile, out here in the real world there has been no warming for nearly 18 years (according to RSS no stat sig warming for 26 years in fact) and as far as I can count the number of papers desperately making contradictory excuses for that now exceeds 30, and the «climate scientists» are still trying to work out how many angels can dance on the head of a pin — which is becoming increasingly obvious to all and sundry, except the aforesaid «climate scientists» of course.

Does that peer reviewer really see accuracy vs. precision the same as pondering how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

It's all angels dancing on the head of a pin, and complaining that NIC Card is redundant depends on a narrow lumpen version of the full story.

reminiscent of the medieval theologians arguments about how many angels could dance on the head of a pin... or the ever more complicated epicycles of the ptolemaic astronomers....

Ask me how many stars there are in the sky, or how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

In that sense, all these discussions regarding physically impossible constraints on the model are merely debating how many angels can stand on the head of a pin.

Once religion is injected, they are incapable of intellectual doubt and committed to the modern equivalent of calculating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin and condemnation of heretics, preferably by burning.

In this current debate angels dancing on the heads of pins come to mind in as much the numbers being employed by both sides to prove their point are almost indistinguishable from the other.

Arguing about whether the 24 - year period 1988 - 2011 is «statistically significant» sounds to me a lot like the debates on «How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?»

If the simple 60/20 cyclical model breaks down when extended prior to 1850 (or a century or two before that if you posit a slow rise from the 1600s), then present divergence is yet another angel dancing on the head of a pin in a world gone mad.