Sentences with phrase «arguments against your theory»

If you don't seek data and arguments against your theory, someone else will, usually with great glee and in a public forum.

My claim (verified in the evolution case) is what you would expect to see is almost all of the reputable scientific organizations defending the theory while a group attacks it and claims that they are being mistreated, that data is being manipulated, that the scientific community is suppressing data and arguments against the theory, etc., etc..

Wasn't his claim that C12 rich CO2 would be naturally produced by increased temperatures, explaining one of the arguments against his theory?

Not exact matches

I find it highly entertaining, although depressing, that Intelligent Design folks try to discredit evolutionary theories with fanciful strawman arguments because they really don't know what they're against.

I love it when someone tries to argue against something and then ends up supporting the theory they are pitted against in their own argument.

Arguments against this kind of theory have no more purchase than arguments againArguments against this kind of theory have no more purchase than arguments againarguments against bebop.

Shalom's argument against the former relies on Grice's notion of «present total temporary states,» Shalom totally includes memory as an element in a «present total temporary state» and within this context charges that «what is called «memory» necessarily ceases to possess the property of «pastness» which is associated with memory» and required by Hartshorne's theory.

Most of the creationist / ID web sites have quietly begun to ask their followers to stop using a whole set of arguments against evolution, including the «just a theory» argument, because they reveal the person's woeful ignorance of real science.

The Challenge of Peace, without reference to the logic of prima facie duties, replicates the structure of Childress» argument exactly: just war theory begins with a presumption against war, and the just war criteria function to override this presumption (or to show that it should not be overridden) in particular cases.

The best argument against ID theory, when all is said and done, is that it rests on a premise — «irreducible complexity» — that may seem compelling at the purely intuitive level but that can never logically be demonstrated.

Gandhi, who defended the theory of caste, said, «I consider untouchability to be a heinous crime against humanity... I know of no argument for its retention and I have no hesitation in rejecting scriptural authority of a doubtful character in order to support a sinful institution.»

Priests have long told women that their aborted foetuses can not go to heaven, which in theory was another argument against ending pregnancy.

Although not in itself an argument against the opponent to abortion, nor an argument in favor of infanticide, the following consideration by Hartshorne indicates the counter intuitiveness of the theory of strict identity:

The arguments against evolution have been so explicitly and thoroughly expounded in the Catholic theology of the last eighty years, that it is not to be expected that later on they will become even more evident, in relation to the Church's awareness of what she believes, than they are now, and so become capable of providing new and certain grounds for rejecting the theory of evolution of a kind that have been declared to be not yet at present available.

Poor little Chad can't answer points against his complete Straw Man arguments against evolutionary theory.

Growing out of a series of books and essays Kekes has written over the last several years - on the nature of moral argument, the problem of evil, and the conflictual goods and evils that make up life as we know it - Against Liberalism marks the author's most explicit broadside against liberal theory tAgainst Liberalism marks the author's most explicit broadside against liberal theory tagainst liberal theory to date.

If you had the slightest argument against evolutionary theory you'd have presented it by now instead of di.cking around just to dick around..

The scientific method argument could be used against the M - Theory because some of the required evidence to prove the theory has no possible teTheory because some of the required evidence to prove the theory has no possible tetheory has no possible testing.

Finally, the fact that I treat with respect an idea that has much in its favor, that is believed by the great majority of scientists, that has no decisive arguments against it, and that may well turn out to be true — I am speaking here of the scientific theory called neo-Darwinism — is not «appeasement» but intellectual humility and honesty.

When people start demanding that you live your life in a certain way over the MV theory then you can use all the arguments against them that atheists use against god and you'll be in the right.

The scientific method isn't an argument against «fine tuning» which is the foundation for ID; the argument to «fine tuning» is M - Theory — essentially stating our Universe isn't anything special, we just happened to evolve in the best suited Universe out of the infinite possible Universes, thus no cosmological need for God.

An absence of this virtue of faith would seem to be illustrated by another recent Tablet editorial (14 April, «Listen to the People») which affirms: «Disobedience, in theory, includes a rejection of the arguments... against the ordination of women.

Whitehead's theory of perception, and of units of succession, completely disposes of Leibniz s argument against interaction between sequences.

Gravity is also a «theory», so unless these people also believe that their deity is constantly holding them against the Earth so they don't fly off into space, then this argument is simply ignorant as well as invalid.

The great fact that drives a coach and horses through the theory of evolution, the lack of fossil (or skeletal) evidence for it, is here described dismissively as «one of the arguments against».

In theory, he is here to ceremonially sign a bill that would allow union members to deduct their union dues from their state taxes, but it's clear what he is really doing today is waging a bigger argument against President Donald Trump.

Another argument against the false flag operation «theory»: in the past USA (or Western) reaction to chemical attacks has been puntual (Obama forcing Syria leaving its chemical weapons stockpiles, Trump launching an attack against the base from where the attack was launched).

The biggest argument against the polio vaccine theory, says the panel, is the discovery of HIV - 1 in tissue from a Manchester sailor who died in Britain in 1959.

One of the biggest arguments against protein supplementation is that, in theory, it's easy for people to consume enough protein in their diets to meet the Recommended Daily Allowance (RDA) of.8 grams per kilogram body weight.

A worksheet looking at how the Big Bang theory can be used in support of the Design Argument or against it.

It is not an argument against random assignment to claim that some schools are chaotic, that implementation of a reform is usually highly variable, and that treatments are not completely faithful to their underlying theories.

It also includes refuting arguments and conspiracy theories that movement conservative offer as evidence against the standards — and demanding that they stop embracing the kind of shoddy thinking that no respectable movement conservative icon — especially Kirk and Reagan — would even find acceptable in a conversation.

The two most common arguments against warming theories seem to be (1) local temperature variations (or mutually - inconclusive data) disprove global warming itself; and (2) models aren't real science, anyway, so we don't need to worry about them.

G&T managed to get their work out there; publishing it in Nature or Science would not have changed the fact that they're arguments just don't hold any water (they didn't do any new science, they just took what was already known, and then tried to use that to argue against what is already known — a search for logical inconsistency, which might have been worthwhile if they'd known what they were doing and if they'd gone after contrarian «theory»)-- unless it were edited, removing all the errors and non-sequitors, after which it would be no different than a physics book such as the kind a climate scientist would use...

The coalition did, however, as the article reported, remove from an internal report by the scientific advisory committee a section that said that «contrarian» theories of why global temperatures appeared to be rising «do not offer convincing arguments against the conventional model of greenhouse gas emission - induced climate change.»

By closing the argument on the theory of AGW from the start and going as far as calling sceptics «Holocaust deniers» the «Warmers» have raised the stakes against themselves.

Well, this is one side of the argument against your feedback loop theory, but it misses the other side.

Although we can not predict specific impacts of geoengineering with much confidence, we can fruitfully consider the conditions under which geoengineering research would be justified (or not), and ethical theory provides a wealth of resources to sift through the value judgments that arguments for (or against) research inevitably involve.

This would be a good argument to proof the theory against the anthropogenic climate change.

The same arguments are made by all those fighting against science, whether they be those who fight against the theory of evolution or what have you.

When so many different arguments support and no observations or plausible arguments speak against the understanding, it's natural that essentially every scientist of applicable specialization agrees that the theory of radiative energy transfer is correct including people like Lindzen and Spencer.

Much of the public argument against the science indicating that our greenhouse gas emissions are driving global warming has been carried by lobbyists and paid spokesmen who attempt to reposition global warming as theory rather than fact.

«In fact, the draft report concludes that there are strong arguments against the cosmic ray theory, while there is compelling evidence that greenhouse gas emissions are driving the unequivocal rise in global average temperature,» he said.

Many of the greatest scientists fought against the tide of accepted wisdom until their observations, experiments, arguments and theories were accepted and, in turn, became the consensus.