Sentences with phrase «as illogical arguments»
If a substantive editor has done her job well, readers won't notice larger problems such as illogical arguments, repetitive sections, boring passages, and undeveloped characters.
http://www.pagetwostrategies.com/ Not exact matches
Those are what are known as fallacious arguments because they are illogical in nature.
However this argument is illogical because it is not as simple as believing and not believing.
Your argument, as illogical as they were, couldn't hide your ignorance.
His arguments are devoid of facts, and his masquerade as a scientist, or whatever, is galling» «attempting to debunk the integrity of the bible, and glorify the theory of evolution is simply a tactic to lure unsuspecting seekers to abandon reason and science in order to embrace an illogical, unverifiable, subjective based explanation of the universe.
I just found this overall to be a poorly justified and illogical argument, probably, as evidenced by the title, just clickbait.
As described by Michael Lewis in his latest book, The Undoing Project, ``... when Danny heard an illogical argument, he asked, What might that be true of?»
Using the media as an outlet for education, we hope to raise the level of awareness on important issues such as pet overpopulation and dog fighting, as well as debunking the unfounded, illogical and fear - based arguments that all too often lead to breed - specific bans and the heartbreaking extermination of beautiful animals whose only crime is having been born.
It's why they are used as pawns in this illogical argument.
The arguments used have the same intellectual quality as flat earth arguments, yet somehow that has no effect on how they are believed, or the illogical connections drawn from them.
I said it was illogical in that a surprisingly large proportion of the arguments most often advanced in its favour are instances of the dozen commonest fallacies in human discourse, as codified by Aristotle in his Refutations of the Sophists 2350 years ago.
As Nicola has pointed out, the solar - planetary theory is gaining traction rapidly despite Leif's attempts to misdirect understanding and kill it with his illogical arguments and rhetoric.
Curry not only takes the extreme range of this — which is illogical since, contorted arguments to argue otherwise aside, she even goes beyond it: to, as quoted above, ludicrously conclude from all this that not only is it not just «reasonably possible» that half could be due to natural variation that just happens to coincide with what we would expect to see from the atmospheric alteration inadvertently undertaken, but that rather than it being somewhere in the middle of up to half being due to variability, or a similarly large portion in fact being veiled, but all of what «could» on the one end of the range be, in fact, IS, but then goes beyond that.
As aggravating (and common) as it is when scientists use illogical or unscientific arguments to promote science, it's perhaps even more irritating when they employ bad or deceptive scientific argumentAs aggravating (and common) as it is when scientists use illogical or unscientific arguments to promote science, it's perhaps even more irritating when they employ bad or deceptive scientific argumentas it is when scientists use illogical or unscientific arguments to promote science, it's perhaps even more irritating when they employ bad or deceptive scientific arguments.
On AGW skeptical blogs, however, just as is the case on conspiracy theory blogs of any kind (e.g. vaccination, moon landing, 9/11), it seems like there is a tacit agreement between fellow skeptics, and also the blog host, never to point out that an idea is flat out wrong or an argument flat out illogical so long as it purports to refute the «official» account.