Sentences with phrase «argument by authority»

And, frankly, saying «this method is endorsed» is, ahem, argument by authority.

So I deny your argument by authority has any validity.

I do not accept arguments by authority.

Not exact matches

There is an argument suggesting that in order to improve the ICO marketplace, it should be regulated presumably by some authority such as the US Securities & Exchange Commission for example.

Argument by false authority (your own experiences in a catholic household don't actually make you an expert on conservativism OR christianity.

I'm sorry but you're not making an argument to counter his, you have no references or citations to back up such a claim and so you revert to attacking this man by calling him gay??? really, you think your the world authority on the bible when then you start casting stones left and right and attacking your fellow man?

This argument presents a challenge to the theological claim by both the settler movement and Christian Zionists that God gave this land to the Jews and thus the Jews have the sole right and authority to determine its status.

For in spite of its prima facie attraction, and even if there is such a «primal» experience, that experience would not be accessible in any philosophically helpful way, could not be exploited without reliance upon the very analyses and arguments whose lack of immediacy and authority the appeal is seeking to escape, could not (even for oneself) sustain translation into the discursive and dialectical combat zone of philosophy, and could not by itself alone provide a nonarbitrary basis for determining what in it is essential to experience merely as such.

Similarly, fundamentalist Protestants, believing in the inerrancy of the Bible as though every word of it, dictated by God himself, was to be accepted as indubitably true, ultimately rely in all their arguments on an external authority.

A standard argument advanced by partisans of judicial supremacy is that the only alternative to tolerating the unrestrained judicial usurpation of democratic legislative authority is «legal anarchy.»

John Warwick Montgomery, a lawyer and philosopher as well as theologian, provides perhaps the most comprehensive argument by a conservative in his recent book Human Rights and Human Dignity: An Apologetic for the Transcendent Perspective (Zondervan, 1986) He concludes that rights derived from the inerrant teachings of the Bible give authority to the rights set forth in the Universal Declaration, even exceeding its claims in significant ways.

Under the authority of God's free Word, she contends — her work retains some Barthian glosses — Christian identity is constituted «by a community of argument concerning the meaning of true discipleship.»

By that argument you are insinuating that you have the right and authority to dictate who is or is not mentally ill.

Taylor points out — and I can not do full justice to his argument here — that not only was Jesus a threat to Rome and the religious elites who were allied with it, but he ended up being crucified — executed - by the imperial authorities.

It could be argued that his arresting translations of the Psalms, so judiciously inserted throughout the book, do more to support his arguments than any other authority quoted by him, be it St. Augustine, Boethius, Yehudah ha - Levi, or Wittgenstein.

This difference of opinion is a matter of judgment; it can not, I think, be settled by arguments from authority.

The counter to that argument is that by making the definition of God universal, it expanded Church authority.

They are always impressed by arguments from authority.

The industry argument that a «History of Safe Use «is sufficient was challenged by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) in May in its final guidance on the assessment needed for food for babies under the age of 16 weeks.

But «authorities» must be challenged publicly and privately and by research and arguments formulated against any monolithic viewpoint that endorses or supports fallacious underlying assumptions.

Not sure about the argument about Rosenstein exceeding authority by referring to the SDNY office, regardless of how Session's recusal is parsed.

A second argument was made justifying Congress» action under the Commerce Clause, which as currently interpreted by the Supreme Court is arguably Congress» broadest authority.

It is a matter in the hands of local authorities, but there is an argument to protect this benefit, while making it taxable for wealthy pensioners by adjusting the level of taxable allowances.)

Whereas Michael Boxer could have recommended immediate reinstatement that could have made me «whole» again, he chose to conclude his own internal report that was three years delinquent by stating that, «Serious questions are raised about Mr. Iritano and record falsification,» which was simply not true, and firmly supported by the Transit Authority's complete reversal of all misconduct allegations against me during oral argument in Appellate Court, Second Department, on May 9, 1991.

The part the Dems are particularly interested in comes at the tail end of the report, highlighting a lawsuit brought against Grimm back in the summer of 2000 by a former NYPD officer who claimed Grimm brandished a gun and misused his FBI authority after getting into an argument with another man over a woman (Grimm's date, the man's estanged wife).

Some are content with Willott's argument that recent changes to listing rules by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) regulator, combined with the imminent introduction of the EU's transparency and accountability directive, will fix the problem.

«Their dissenting argument has been supported by the majority of scientists for years,» he wrote, adding that the authority's report «shunts the entire problem, with far greater pain, into the future.»

Alex Chalk MP, who represents Cheltenham, and who recently agreed to be the new Conservative Vice Chair of f40, said: «The government has listened to the arguments put forward by f40 and MPs from the poorest funded authorities and has attempted to put right an historic wrong which has caused many schools to be treated so unfairly for many years.

That is certainly a poor excuse for failing to acknowledge the great harm done to the public good by the efforts of Saunders and her kind to contaminate the public debate with distortions and discredited arguments disguised as expert authority.

The fur - is - green argument might just be one of the lowest forms of greenwashing, and a new ruling by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) banning an ad campaign in the UK proves the point.

Here, «it was very well known» and «proved by countless experiments» and the general «handwave to the past authority of Arrhenius / Tyndall / Fourier», enough to «prove they were right», while refusing to fetch any of these claimed empirical studies — those denying the Dogma were being successfully marginalised further by this wave of supercilious blocking of arguments from AGWs all the while they were hypocrically proclaiming their repulsion to the blocking of discussion on the science and objecting to the malpractices such as hiding open access of data.

If your argument is your own authority, there is a total number of ONE human in the world who will be convinced by it.

Did I miss something here, or did Trenberth try to pull a fast one by conflating GW with AGW, in addition to the obvious argument from authority?

It is only propped up by the billions of vested interests in all derivatives of the CO2 scheme and now that post modern science has been unmasked for what it is - a pretext -, the true face of political activism, the social sciences in which you pulled your «denier» term, is showing up, eagerly expecting that after years of brainwashing, fear mongering, propaganda spewed on the masses through main stream media - often linked to vested green interests Thomson Reuters for instance -, that «action» will come thanks to uneducated zealots, incapable of understanding the science, eagerly parroting arguments of authority and willing to serve their new masters.

And even if it is an «argument from authority,» if by «authority» you mean «expert,» I see little problem with it, particularly when someone like yourself is clearly not informed but has a hammer - headed opinion anyway — you honestly don't see that in yourself?

«What passes for science includes opinion, arguments - from - authority, dramatic press releases, and fuzzy notions of consensus generated by preselected groups.

(1) You did start with the authority (and consensus) argument when claiming that: «Climate science is a highly technical subject developed by superior intellects based on higher mathematics, advanced technology, truly staggering quantities of data, and a vast literature of peer - reviewed articles.

David's whole schtick is the Argument to Authority as represented by pal reviewed climate science.

Arguments supported by evidence and reasoning don't exclude appeals to authority.

Lindzen is not offering an argument that can be critically assessed, but a judgement of the evidence backed by his authority as a prominent researcher.

(As propaganda depends on quantity and repetition... The truth just needs to be heard by a thinking mind...) So truthful questions and truthful evidence and truthful doubts and truthful counter points are attacked, vilified (usually «attack the messenger»), deleted, and drowned out in a flood of non-sequitur and appeal to authority arguments... (Another useful tool, btw, is just to measure the number of Logical Fallacies vs correct logical syllogisms... the more LF the more it's propaganda... the more correct logical syllogisms, data included btw, the less propaganda and the more honest science... but I haven't named that thought tool yet... Perhaps the LF Ratio?

Your lack of logical ability is demonstrated by your use of the logical fallacy of «Argument from Authority» which you again present here concerning «the viewpoint of the IPCC» (despite my having told you of that fallacy).

But — despite it being described as a textbook case (an appeal to authority), I remain unconvinced by the arguments at the top of this thread.

That is what «science» is doing in the 21st Century: regulating people, limiting their expectations and making arguments from authority, for authority, in contrast to the promises made by science in the modern era, to respond to the desire to improve circumstances.

What is meant by the term here is the combination of argument from authority and argument ad populam, in which the arguer does not give the argument and evidence that has convinced the scientific community, but instead uses an an argument the claim simply that all scientists say so.

«This study from the regulatory authority charged with ensuring reliability bolsters arguments made by electric co-ops and others that the EPA's interim deadlines are, quite simply, not workable,» she wrote in a statement.

We have already heard arguments about how this new group of scientists lacks authority, expertise, and how these scientists might be funded by Exxon Mobil.

The use of labels such as «warmist» and «skeptic,» is symptomatic of the kind of heuristic in which the correct inference is identified by argumentum ad vericundium (argument from authority).

Wikipedia says: By accident or design, fallacies may exploit emotional triggers in the listener or interlocutor (e.g. appeal to emotion), or take advantage of social relationships between people (e.g. argument from authority).

For example, a German court rejected the argument of a party that a three - member tribunal had been appointed by the wrong authority, since that party had failed to demonstrate that a different appointment procedure would have led to a different ruling.878