Sentences with phrase «argumentation as»

Earlier planned litigation strategies (such as campaigns for school desegregation and for the abolition of capital punishment) took place primarily within the court system, employing legal argumentation as the mechanism for social change.

The speech — which argues that global warming is pseudo-science — is as specious a bit of argumentation as I've seen in a while.

I suppose it's hard to draw the line regarding tedious argumentation as opposed to the spirit of inquiry on a topic like this, but it's ever so dull to have the usual suspects show up with the usual lines of attack and not the slightest interest in conversing.

My main interest here is in the structure and the demands of theological argumentation as such, not in an interpretation of Ogden's theological argumentation.

As he admits himself, «it would be better to describe our argumentation as spiralling rather than linear» (p. 348).

Not exact matches

My philosophy department dismissed me as a futurist and the economists dismissed me as a philosopher (A little vindication: I have since had a few individuals contact me and apologize for dismissing me and in review they have found my premises and argumentation sound even if they still do not necessarily agree with my conclusions).

Types of Moral Argumentation Regarding Homosexuality by Pim Pronk Eerdmans, 350 pages, $ 24.99 paper An interesting book not so much for the position it advances (approval of homosexual relations) as for the claim that any position on homosexuality (or anything else) must be reached on the basis of moral reflection independent of nature, science, or theology.

Whatever orthodox believers may think of Kenny's journey over these decades from classical theism to something vaguer, he is at least an equal - opportunity basher: For his aversion to absolutism can equally well be employed against the New Atheists, who affect an apodictic absolutism in their argumentation that makes them as impregnable to counterevidence as anything found in a creationist textbook.

Simply because the organic metaphor has had politically undesirable ramifications in the past should not disqualify it forever as an object for theological reflection and argumentation.

To understand this form of argumentation, imagine Shelly as sitting in a canoe with me — each of us on extreme ends of the canoe.

What is less clear to me is why complementarians like Keller insist that that 1 Timothy 2:12 is a part of biblical womanhood, but Acts 2 is not; why the presence of twelve male disciples implies restrictions on female leadership, but the presence of the apostle Junia is inconsequential; why the Greco - Roman household codes represent God's ideal familial structure for husbands and wives, but not for slaves and masters; why the apostle Paul's instructions to Timothy about Ephesian women teaching in the church are universally applicable, but his instructions to Corinthian women regarding head coverings are culturally conditioned (even though Paul uses the same line of argumentation — appealing the creation narrative — to support both); why the poetry of Proverbs 31 is often applied prescriptively and other poetry is not; why Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob represent the supremecy of male leadership while Deborah and Huldah and Miriam are mere exceptions to the rule; why «wives submit to your husbands» carries more weight than «submit one to another»; why the laws of the Old Testament are treated as irrelevant in one moment, but important enough to display in public courthouses and schools the next; why a feminist reading of the text represents a capitulation to culture but a reading that turns an ancient Near Eastern text into an apologetic for the post-Industrial Revolution nuclear family is not; why the curse of Genesis 3 has the final word on gender relationships rather than the new creation that began at the resurrection.

As the cardinal put it, «No one today would dispute that, at the time it was published, Humanae Vitae rested on the foundations of a fragile anthropology, and that there was a certain «biologism» in its argumentation.»

I therefore conclude that you make equal argumentation against second marriages (as compared to homosexual marriage).

This is where Hartshorne could, and in some implicit ways does, drive a wedge in Brightman's view, because Brightman is willing as a point of method to collapse metaphysical questions into epistemological questions.29 Hartshorne is not so willing, and thinks personalism must employ both inductive (empirical) and transcendental argumentation to support its own claims.

As anyone who has mastered the time - honored art of argumentation and the Socratic Method can tell you, nothing will favorably end a debate quicker than a picture of Willy Wonka saying something snarky about Benghazi.

The closing pages of both Process and Reality and Adventures of Ideas are strongly intuitive, as Whitehead soars beyond the careful, explicit argumentation he had been building on.

The first is that of a «fundamental theology»: What model will most adequately explicate the methods, criteria, warrants, backings and modes of argumentation by means of which one may genuinely judge any statement as a theological one?

Indeed, since the movement of the argumentation (such as it is) is towards first principles - including this single first principle - and since scientific argumentation is from first principles, any strictly - speaking demonstrative argumentation would have to be limited to preliminary and ancillary issues, such as whether material substances are properly - speaking forms or rather composites, etc..

And reason and argumentation and evidence (even based on observation) are valued, as it is part of academia.

This is why Aristotle tries as much as possible to link the logic of testimony to the logic of argumentation by insisting on the criteria of probability which can be applied to it.

As such, testimony is an element in a treatise on argumentation.

So positioning «icky» as the barometer for morality is just poor argumentation.

This is why I believe it's so important to study both historical religious arguments supporting the abolition of slavery and historical religious arguments opposing the abolition of slavery (see my post on Mark Noll's The Civil War as a Theological Crisis» for a sampling), as well as historical religious arguments supporting desegregation and historical religious arguments opposing desegregation — not because I believe both sides are equal, but because the patterns of argumentation that emerge are so unnervingly familiar:

Indeed, such a form of argumentation ultimately proves to be as much required for a fully critical theology as are the others we have discussed, intended as it is to clarify what they necessarily presuppose concerning the applicability or capacity for existential illustration of the concepts they employ.

Because each type of argumentation plays a distinct and necessary role in a fully reflective or critical theological analysis of the relation of experience and value, only that «methodological alternative in process theology» which employs them for their respective purposes and to the highest degree can properly be regarded as adequate.

I turn now to the types of argumentation required for the critical theological appropriation of such a preliminary interpretation of the data of experience, taken as evidentially relevant for theology.

This type of argument is again broadly evidentiary in nature, although it reflects not the «turn to the subject» characteristic of the appeal to individual experience, but rather a «pragmatic» or «linguistic» turn, as illustrated by Whitehead's observation that the evidence of human experience as shared by civilized intercommunication «is also diffused throughout the meanings of words and linguistic expressions» (cited in TPT 74).12 Such an appeal is an essentially historical form of argumentation.

While widely controverted, such argumentation is actually as unavoidable for a fully critical theology as are the other types we have considered.

Above all, of course, is (2 Corinthians 15, where it is especially obvious in his circular argumentation of verses 12 - 13 2 — I «Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say there is no resurrection of the dead?

Moreover, to the extent that it stands up to criticism, it is itself to be regarded as precisely that sort of critical theological argumentation in which I am interested.

But he also highlights significant weaknesses, for example: «Argumentation to justify fundamental Catholic and Christian positions on sex education is lamentably absent» and, it invokes «secular rhetoric in explaining the aim of understanding the Church's teaching on contraception and pregnancy as becoming «able to make informed choices»».

Rationalistic theologies, such as Charles Hartshorne's, are based largely on a priori reason or rational argumentation, and deem these valuable precisely because they are not particular.

As the ground of assurance here is not rational, argumentation is irrelevant.

I consider there to be considerable value in constructing one's argumentation evenly; the winning - over of a reader is more lasting and powerful when, though fair characterization, you enable the reader to come to your opinion organically (as opposed to leading the reader by stick and carrot).

Just for those who might take his «argumentation» seriously, describing the wish that everyone would see the same truth as you do is at least a wish for less freedom., even if that is not accompanied with an actual attempt to minimize other people's freedoms.

Because of this incompleteness God's subjective immediacy does not end, despite God's always having a specific satisfaction, and that is why there is, only in God's case, no perishing, With respect to all these points my argumentation rests on the reversal of poles in God (by which an aim is possible for God which is formally independent of any concrete actual world, while Christian does not use God's reversed polar structure but uses God's everlastingness as his main argument.

Where his argumentation is based on God's everlastingness, which however — in the absence of the reversal of poles as an argument — remains ill - founded, my argumentation is based on the reversal of God's poles, which is well - founded in Whitehead's metaphysics.

He has gone beyond argumentation — although in fact the Thesis form makes it clear that these demanding sentences are still intended as something to be debated.

My interpretation, though developed independently, may be seen as a reassertion of Christian's proposal, partly though a stronger argumentation based on the reversal of poles, and mainly by a refutation of the objection made by Leclerc and Ford.

Where I say: God's aim (that of God's consequent nature) is achieved, and remains open, because it is an aim which continually «shifts» (and can be such because God's aim is formally independent of any actual world whatsoever, but materially consequent on the evolving world, Nobo says: the aim of God's primordial nature is never achieved, but the data available at the beginning of every stage are synthesized every time, and this is sufficient for prehensibility — not the same argumentation, as can be seen, but a closely related one, indeed.

I'm only addressing the argumentation in your answer of course, not the humanitarian aspects of this topic as a whole.

Generally, this type of maneuver is being described as «blacklisting,» and there's a lot of argumentation back and forth about whether it's fair, whether it's right, etc., etc..

We welcome submissions from academics and students in and outside the University of Oxford, from all disciplines and persuasions, as long as they offer evidence - based argumentation and academic rigour.

I want to give you a lot of personal details, with the hope that 1) you don't see me as just talking about this stuff as abstract political argumentation, and 2) maybe I get to contribute something new / different to a familiar debate.

In his new book, Media Argumentation: Dialectic, Persuasion, and Rhetoric, University of Winnipeg philosopher Douglas Walton proposes that fallacies such as the ad hominem are better understood as perversions or corruptions of perfectly good arguments.

Again, using these concepts as scaffolds and requiring the identification of the building blocks of successful argumentation will keep the peace when the blood is boiling.

I was working with juniors in my AP language course on a unit about argumentation where we considered the following central question: should the U.S. use «enhanced interrogation techniques» as a means of preserving individual liberties?

As I say in my new book, Writing Behind Every Door: Teaching Common Core Writing in the Subject Areas (due out in April), a valuable way the students show me their research is by providing at least 10 hyperlinks throughout their essays, regardless of whether they are writing short stories or argumentation essays.

The focus isn't to provide evidence as the sole means to prove, but rather to make an argument and bring in evidence that one must then justify through argumentation.

A similar form of argument contrasting non-knowledge-based and knowledge - based instructional approaches applies to «argumentation» or «writing» as science learning activities.