Sentences with phrase «arguments about evidence»

So the lawyers from both sides make their arguments about evidence.

Not exact matches

«The US government acted as police force (identifying the foreign government's crime), prosecutor (making the legal arguments), jury (ruling on the evidence), and judge (sentencing the foreigner to US retaliatory punishment),» Chad Bown, a senior fellow at the pro-free trade Peterson Institute for International Economics, wrote in a memo about Section 301's history earlier in August.

Over the short - term, unfortunately, there is no assurance that investors or analysts will quickly recognize that this market is trading on the basis of false premises about earnings and valuation (though my impression is that those who wake up based on reasoned argument and evidence will be better off than those who wake up based on investment losses).

General District Judge Dean Worcester said the legal standard for establishing probable cause to send the case to a grand jury is low, and that arguments about planted evidence are better suited for trial.

Speculation about what nature is in itself, backed up by rational arguments, particularly about the mind - body problem, and empirical evidence from the sciences, is therefore a necessary dimension of a process Christian theology.

While I am not religious (I will call myself agnostic), and having an IQ well over genius levels, with scientific and mathematical tendencies, let me ask you a few questions, because what I see here are a bunch of people talking about «no evidence» or «proof» of God's existence, therefore He can't possibly exist, existential arguments, which are not arguments, but fearful, clouded alterations of a truth that can not be seen.

Hearing stupid atheists respond to my posts is the best evidence that i'm right... you get all these angry morons that don't have a clue what they're talking about trying to attack my argument, «BUT THOSE PEOPLE WHO MURDERED MILLIONS THEY WERE N'T DRIVEN BY ATHEISM TO KILL»....

[1][2] It is a contemporary adaptation of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, presented by its advocates as «an evidence - based scientific theory about life's origins» rather than «a religious - based idea».

I know full well that there are opposing arguments and evidence that lead to different convictions about what ought to he done.

The evidence for this argument [38] can be found in Cull of the Wild: A Contemporary Analysis of Wildlife Trapping in the United States [39](hereafter COTW) and Facts about Furs [40](hereafter, FAF).

Bellah's argument that greater self - consciousness about religious symbolism tends to be accompanied by a greater emphasis on personal interpretation and a decline in tacit acceptance of official creeds is also supported by a variety of evidence.

Ultimately everything Creationism and belief systems say about «evidence» is an Argument from Ignorance, and «god of the gaps».

There is some argument about this; some researchers believe that all reactions come from trace contamination in the oats, while others have found evidence that a small percentage of people also have sensitivity to oats.

I think the most annoying part about debating you isn't that you simply disagree with people, it's arguing that the other side simply has no argument, when there absolutely is evidence.

In fact, the argument those mothers stay and eat the placenta, sometimes taking hours, rather than leave the site is evidence that the behavior of placentophagy is not just about cleaning up the nest.

I've had several arguments with hard core advocates over this, in fact — and was told that I don't know what I'm talking about, despite the fact that I have actually successfully nursed 6 children, and that all the evidence we have shows that women who are exhausted are likely to have supply problems.

Yet there is a strong and deep academic literature, that draws on extensive interdisciplinary evidence from economics, political science, anthropology and history, which shows how simplistic and misguided such arguments about «resource wars» are, both when approached theoretically and through Asian or African case studies.

So I wasn't being particularly critical of Shapps» argument or evidence about IVF services, but was pointing out that it depends on a willingness to reign in local variation.

Working together, they will develop and test a variety of learning experiences in which students use online simulations to model energy - releasing and energy - requiring reactions, analyze and interpret data to make predictions about energy phenomena, and use evidence from their own observations or from simplified versions of scientific articles to explain phenomena and construct and critique arguments.

Likewise, advocates for smoking bans should be more candid about the limits of the arguments when interventions depend on weak evidence.

If this has been posted here before, forgive my blindness, but someone just sent me it and damn, the old arguments about legumes are so «over» for me anyway, I was very happy to find this review summarizes almost entirely the evidence - based reasons «why», from a paleo perspective no less.

Many arguments favoring higher intakes of calcium and other nutrients have been based on evidence about the diets of prehistoric humans.

There's a pair of back - to - back twists that alter our perspective on one of the characters, making one side of the argument look dishonest (The lie is only about a single specific; the validity of the complaint is still present) before confirming that the other is even worse (In putting forward evidence against their cause, they're not too intelligent, either, but fortunately for them, no one notices).

This also ties back to your CCSS about argument and tying argument to context and evidence.

Pupils» critical thinking skills are developed by examining the evidences and arguments about the resurrection of Jesus.

Teachers will need to incorporate lessons that ask students to analyze exemplar oral and written arguments, and they will need to increase the number of writing and speaking assignments in which students argue their opinion about a topic or theme, using text - based evidence as support.

The most frustrating thing about Diane Ravitch's new book, Reign of Error, isn't the way she twists the evidence on school choice or testing, or her condescending tone toward leaders trying to improve educational outcomes, or her clever but disingenuous rhetorical arguments.

And in 9th - grade «Modern World I,» Eileen Kim is teaching students to integrate evidence into their argument as they write an essay about the «zombie revolution.»

Van Es & Sherin (2002) referred to this phase as developing an argument and noted the importance of providing evidence to support claims about the effectiveness of an event.

Learn what the research says about how to develop expertise in this genre of writing — building an understanding of (persuasive) schema; developing stronger writing prompts for the 3 argument types (fact - based, judgment - based, policy - based); and teaching students how to find and use the most relevant evidence (text, data, etc.) needed to support each argument / opinion type.

This is not an inherently unreasonable argument to make, but it has a whiff of wishful thinking about it and is not clearly supported by the evidence.

When asked about the debate regarding memorizing math facts vs. developing conceptual understanding in a 2016 interview she said «Actually, I think it's a silly argument because the evidence is pretty clear that children really need to do both things.

Think about what evidence you have for the quality of teaching and the performance of each teacher that you could show if something unexpected turns up and there is an argument to be had.

Instead, the core of the trial is likely to slog through recondite economic arguments and civil evidence issues; part of today's hearing focused on expert witness opinion about the competitive effects of agency pricing and whether it coincided with Apple's economic self - interest.

You have to write about your perception of an object or situation, refer to secondary sources, develop the argument (point of view), and support this argument with evidence.

Arguments rage about whether we are in an auto - loan bubble now, and there is certainly some evidence suggesting that we are, but remember that you can only define a bubble after it has popped.

;P Not that I care, nor is it the point of what I'm about to discuss) Aside from the latter, just some constructive criticism, no offenses meant... I CAN repeatedly say I'm a seasoned vet of 35 years who definitely has experience with more than two dozen animals and spout an argument, but it doesn't make any of it true until I have evidence... you know, what you badgered others for, but only had excuses why you couldn't provide yours.

So at the ending of the day I don't really believe that anyone needs to prove or give any type of evidence that games many times are not violent because I don't really believe that the argument nearly even needs to be about the violence and games as much as it's about that we already have a rating system for that type of content in the first place.

There is a lot of evidence for all the arguments, but about half can be interpreted as bias or ignorance on gender issues depending on who is delivering it.

On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments in a case about the collection of DNA evidence, and whether the Fourth Amendment prohibits police from obtaining DNA samples before conviction without a warrant.

Whilst the arguments of Abbot, Pierrehumbert and others about cloud radiative forcing may imply an earlier winter low ice condition than GCMs suggest, there is no evidence that this will kick in within a few years.

How about evaluating what's true on the basis of the evidence instead of endlessly blathering about who benefits, and other worthless ad hominem arguments?

That is, a judge listens to the lawyers and their evidence and arguments, not the people in the court room and their opinions about the evidence and arguments.

-- evolution v. intelligent design) I don't have much patience with giving equal air time to opinionizings about the arguments and evidence.

Reading his PDFs will give you a comprehensive understanding of the argument for GW, explanation of forcings (particularly CO2, which you asked about) and of the difference between historical evidence vs computer models.

For sure, the technical rebuttals to the specific claims compete with balance of evidence arguments and a little bit of playful trolling for the attention of anyone who actually cares about the details.

You can not argue with the science (I don't think you have a clue about that anyway) but use a political argument which is not backed up by any scientific evidence.

IMO, Tamsin's approach, similarly, operates from assumptions about cause - and - effect that are not grounded in an evidence - based argument.

Tim Ball keeps changing what he says about climate change without giving any evidence for his contradictory arguments.

Consider this comparison: if you ran a giant food company which produced a particular product for over a hundred years with no basic complaint against it beyond it not being a staple of a standard daily meal diet, and you found yourself accused in just the last 20 years of both knowing it was cancer - causing and paying dietitian experts to tell the public otherwise — despite the lack of irrefutable evidence of its harm and the total lack of credible evidence that you paid «shill experts» to lie on your behalf — why would you suddenly capitulate to arguments against your product while not raising any concern about the corruption accusation hurled at you?