Sentences with phrase «argument against this conclusion»

Potential Rebuttals: One argument against this conclusion is that there are vampire killers (e.g., Buffy the Vampire Slayer) who are able to keep the vampire race in check.

Not exact matches

There is at least one: since being is power, every being has some power just by virtue of being; but then it is metaphysically impossible that God should have all the power.20 Or to make this an internal argument against the classical doctrine, the conclusion could be softened to read: «If there is anything other than God, God does not have all the power there is.»

Arguments against utilitarianism by other secularists often proceed by showing that the doctrine yields conclusions contrary to our most deeply held moral intuitions.

That conclusion, however, presupposes my rebuttal to Hasker's arguments against the idea that process theodicy has an advantage in relation to moral evil.

That conclusion, based on a full but complicated analysis of every possible measurement ¬ — complaints to Ombudsfolk, audit reports of all kinds, measurement of times and numbers, review of agency work and outsourcing — stands up against every possible reservation, such as the argument that costs and complaints would have risen even more had the reforms not been undertaken, or that social change made it necessary for government to run faster to stand still.

If you take the argument against selection to its logical conclusion then once an MP has been elected to Parliament they should stay in the job as long as they want and there is no further need for any General Election.

The NAS panel concluded that for 30 year averages this was «plausable / reasonable» - y the warmest in 1000 years and it was «impossible to bring a convincing argument against» that conclusion.

So in conclusion, the real arguments against paleo are catching straws and missing the main point of the paleo.

- An online article by Lafferty and Burley (undated) explores the arguments for and against learning styles, before coming to the conclusion that «learning styles are a myth».

One argument against the specific conclusion of missing growth rings is that trees are carefully cross-dated when forming regional chronologies, and this precludes the possibility of chronological errors.

It's totally unscientific to dismiss the conclusion of AR5 without explicit criticism against the actual arguments used in AR5 in support of its conclusion.

Because I gave an extreme example, it is difficult to justify crossing against the light, but in some other example, there might be a better argument to balance a conclusion based on argument from ignorance.

Unless any of the many, many people who have argued against the conclusion that Jelbring's work is completely wrong and should have never been accepted in the first place wish to keep arguing, perhaps the more polite ones can concede in one last post and we can wrap this up and move on to N&Z, the «existence» of a real, live GHE, and maybe, just maybe, get to where the skeptical arguments on the list are much better informed and less likely to play fast and loose with the laws of nature or thermodynamics.

Since Jelbring explicitly states that he is waiting a very long time for relaxation to occur and did not inconsistently qualify his use of an ideal gas by asserting that it is non-conductive (and because there is no substantive difference between my vertically confined gas column and his vertically confined gas column, at this point we all agree that my arguments against EEJ are valid and the stated conclusion of his thought experiment is incorrect.

[45] As for droughts, the IPCC noted that its previous conclusions about increasing trends were overstated and that «the compelling arguments both for and against a significant increase in the land area experiencing drought has hampered global assessment.»

«The most telling arguments» supporting her conclusion against fair use, she wrote, «came from an unlikely source — defendant's counsel himself.»

My point is that there's an argument, which wasn't addressed, which I think requires the conclusion that, as a matter of law, D was deemed to have discovered his claim against the proposed defendants before January 1, 2004.

In general, «the proper balancing of these interests against the reviewing courts» interests in hearing the strongest possible arguments in favour of each side of a dispute is struck when tribunals do retain the ability to offer interpretations of their reasons or conclusions and to make arguments implicit within their original reasons» (at para. 69).

It acknowledged there were valid arguments on both sides of the issue but preferred the conclusion that the expiration of the limitation period for P's hypothetical damages action against D2 — hypothetical because P did not sue D2 in time or did not sue D1 at all — did not provide D2 a defence to D1's contribution claim.