Sentences with phrase «argument by its conclusion»

To judge of Bultmann's argument by its conclusion, «modern man» means for the purposes of the present question a being sufficiently sophisticated to appreciate the existentialist approach which is Bultmann's offered remedy; say one man in five thousand.

Not exact matches

, and in the piece they discuss why stories are much more influential than facts (again, a conclusion backed by numerous studies) through their ability to change emotional beliefs in a way that «logical» arguments just can't touch.

We would actually dispute this conclusion, but decided to do so in a separate post (note: the report does not come out in favor of this conclusion either, it merely mentions the argument as one that is made by critics of bitcoin).

In his superb defense of freedom of thought and opinion, Matthew J. Franck does not carry through his unblinking realism in analyzing the arguments for same - sex marriage to his conclusion, where he evinces a Pollyannaish hope that the «strategy pursued by the advocates of same - sex marriage will be self - defeating.»

If those who have most deeply entered into the contemporary situation find what is said dull or vacuous, it is not saved by the amount of evidence amassed for its conclusions or the tightness of its logical arguments.

We must ask here whether the conclusion that God can not be affected by events within his creation in fact follows from the fundamental argument from contingent to necessary being.

In these arguments the move from data consisting of Biblical texts construed in a certain way to conclusions concerning what truly is a tenet in some Biblical theology is warranted by process hermeneutics, strictly understood, i.e., a process theory of understanding.

The Primary Purpose of Sex and Marriage: Procreation Holloway's rooting of the purpose of sex in the Incarnation is a unique argument in favour of the conclusion articulated by the tradition and by many contemporary orthodox Catholic scholars, namely, that the «primary reason for the existence of sex in human nature in the intention of God is for children».

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.»

I continue to be troubled by the structure of David Jones» argument regarding the ethics of cremation.Let's review his conclusion: After reviewing some of the key historical, biblical, and theological considerations that have been a part of the moral discussion of cremation within the....

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

Attempts have often been made to show that this man never lived, that he is entirely the product of early Christian imagination, but these attempts have at no time succeeded in convincing more than a few, and it is inconceivable that they would ever convince the Christian, for the event whose historicity is to him more than the conclusion of an argument but is witnessed to by his own being as a Christian — this event includes the appearance in history of this man.

This aids the interrogation of experience: «The observation acquires an enhanced penetration by reason of the expectation evoked by the conclusion of the argument» (PR 13).

The purpose of this appendix, then, is to summarize the results of modern Biblical scholarship concerning the resurrection, to look at the conclusions reached by those whom I will call the «minimalists», and to evaluate their arguments and proposals.

Usually, I find accountants, like economists, better at hindsight than insight and although I am not convinced by the Vysyble arguments (or at least what was reported of them) I would agree with another of their conclusions that we will, sooner or later, end up with a European Super League.

After listening to arguments by counsel, Justice Abang said «I can not come to conclusion that the DG DSS has flouted the order of the court.

«When the review into LIBOR is looked at, it will of course include this market [the oil market], and will aim to publish conclusions by the end of September... as a result of this debate, and the arguments from my Hon. Friend [Robert Halfon], I will also write to the FSA about concerns raised today... It is absolutely right that we enhance transparency in the oil and commodity markets... It is clear from the data that there is a considerable time - lag involved [between oil prices and petrol prices].

I always understood «begs the question» as meaning «to assume the truth of a conclusion in the process of arguing for that conclusion, by for example including the truth of the conclusion in a premise of the argument».

The lawyer argued in the third grounds that the CCT erred in law «when it abandoned the main purport of the recusal (disqualification) and ignored the submissions of counsel thereon only to begin to write a ruling comprised of facts and arguments that are only know to Justice Umar and not raised or introduced by any parties in order to arrive at a conclusion not urged upon him by any of the parties concerning the constitutional and statutory relationship between the AGF and the EFCC».

I think it makes the point validly that climate sensitivity (response to doubling CO2) above 5 deg.C is at least possible, albeit quite unlikely; a conclusion borne out by many other arguments and simulations.

It was the underlying arguments and conclusions used by Shapley and Curtis that are held up to modern scientific scrutiny - not a hypothetical straw pole of an audience that consisted of mostly non-astronomers.

I have come to the conclusion that almost any argument or misunderstanding can be resolved by using proper communication.

And it's one of several cockamamie arguments advanced by viewers given a platform for their unconventional theories in Room 237, an odd duck of a documentary about the conclusions reached by five different Kubrick fans upon very close analysis of The Shining.

Fights and arguments among secondary characters were clearly included to both resolve character arcs and build the severity of the climax, but all they end up doing is ruining the pace and prolonging what has become a foregone conclusion by this point.

Of course, just who those characters are depends on your view of the argument, and while it may seem like Affleck is clear on his beliefs by the film's conclusion, a final scene suggests that the argument may be a little more complicated.

The article's argument is summarized by the conclusion: «Service learning has the characteristics of effective teaching and learning approaches for student engagement, and leads to lifelong benefits.»

For an argument to be valid, its premises — the things that the argument is assuming to be true — must be put into a relationship by the person making the argument that entails the argument's conclusion.

- 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».

The Atlanta report's conclusion that cheating resulted from a culture of fear, one spurred by rising test - score targets, fuels the argument that policies determined by test scores provide perverse incentives that are not in the best interests of students.

Remember those teachers insisting that essays had to have an introduction, a body of argument supported by evidence, and a conclusion at the end?

Building a book - length argument around his contention that «the seventeenth century is the moment when one world - view was displaced by another because the scientific displaced that of faith,» Grayling paints a picture of astronomers, mathematicians, medical doctors, and even alchemists often reaching conclusions that even they dearly hoped weren't true — because the answers meant opposing Christian doctrine, unwise if you wanted to keep your job, freedom or head... To my ear, though, the tone of the Grayling's prose is rather flat — think «textbook» and you've pretty much got it — so many of these unexpected sidelights are not presented as compellingly or dramatically as one might hope.

While an essay is chiefly an interesting piece of factual reading based on a range of research material, a truly award - winning paper should have your own special touch, your opinions and an insightful conclusion, supported by convincing arguments and indisputable facts.

There is always an introduction which is followed by main thesis arguments and solutions chapter wise finally a conclusion is given at the end.

The above discussions and arguments about the unemployment draw a conclusion that though the issue is very big but it could be solved by making efforts.

The conclusions of the inductive arguments are developed by inference.

By following this advice, you will remind the readers of your main idea, show how the conclusions were reached, and strengthen the overall effect of your argument.

Thesis topic must be justified; claims and conclusions must be supported by experiments or reasoned arguments and deductions.

In logic, if one is to avoid radical skepticism for skepticism of a more deliniated form with respect to empirical conclusions justified by reference to evidence, one can not offer a broad, philosophic argument that by its very nature would undermine all human thought, but one must provide arguments of a more deliniated form.

I think it makes the point validly that climate sensitivity (response to doubling CO2) above 5 deg.C is at least possible, albeit quite unlikely; a conclusion borne out by many other arguments and simulations.

I take a different approach than many of my peers, I look at the counter arguments, plays devil's advocate and patiently post the explanations and data on my own blog, but wmanny it is not wrong the basic conclusions reached by NASA, NOAA, Princeton AOS, Harvard research, and countless others besides the IPCC report.

Now, though, a new study by Matthew Menne and other scientists at the National Climatic Data Center, the federal office charged with tracking climate trends, directly challenges the underpinnings of arguments that Bad Weather Stations = Faulty Climate Conclusions.

Scientifically, this argument holds no water: it is simply not possible to draw conclusions about the causes of climate variations by just looking at one time series.

Milloy's specious argument is a characteristic example for a method frequently employed by «climate skeptics»: from a host of scientific data, they cherry - pick one result out of context and present unwarranted conclusions, knowing that a lay audience will not easily recognise their fallacy.

Imagine if you will, someone like me arguing evidence for AGW coming to CFACT and citing an article from, not a top - tier journal, nor even a second - tier, but more like a third - tier journal like the Asia - Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences (which people generally publish in when they can't pass the more rigorous peer review of the more reputable journals), and if that paper were written by a person who's work has had to be corrected by others, not once, not twice, but FOUR times to my knowledge, and every correction takes it back in the opposite direction of what that person was arguing, and if the paper I was citing was this guy making the same old tired argument he's been corrected on before, and if this paper already had evidence of data tampering to get it's conclusions... just imagine the uproar from the usual crowd here.

In fact, this is a similar argument to the one I made on the Browning Australia thread: if by omission of one data «point» — one proxy in this case, one year's rainfall in the Browning Australia thread — you drastically change the conclusion, then your method can not be robust.

And in addition, think about all the wasted energy the «climate community» spent mitigating the impact of «deniers,» when «skeptics» could have helped out by listening more carefully to the «climate community,» and trying to understand «the climate community's» arguments, and adding to progress on increasing our understanding of the causes of climate variability and change — rather than apologizing or ignoring the input from scientists like Fred Singer — who deliberately lifts a conditional clause from a larger sentence, divorces it completely from context, and creates a fraudulent quotation in order to deliberately deceive, or Ross McKitrick who slanders other scientists on purely speculative conclusions about their motivations, or guest - posters at WUWT who call BEST «media whores,» or the long line of denizens at Climate Etc. who falsely claim that the «climate community» ignores all uncertainties towards the goal of serving a socialist, eco-Nazi agenda to destroy capitalism.

That conclusion is further supported by fingerprint arguments, and more detailed attribution in a host of areas.

This is not a careful argument, because people — sceptical and not — have been questioning the leaps between observing that the earths temperature changes, the attribution of that change to humans, the conclusion that it will cause catastrophe, and that the only way to confront that catastrophe is by mitigating climate change through reduction in emissions.

«Kook» and such words are typically used by Web to describe anyone whose conclusions he dislikes, but whose arguments he can not fault.

An ad hominem argument is any that attempts to counter another's claims or conclusions by attacking the person, rather than addressing the argument itself.