Since this is an important issue today, and quite relevant to WTO policies, let us look
briefly at his argument.
Not exact matches
In this paper I shall (1)
briefly set forth this
argument; (2) show that the
argument, if it is valid, is valid only for a Hartshornean God; (3) argue that, since Hartshorne's God does require that
at least something (anything will do) contingent exists, the «new» ontological
argument fails even for Hartshorne's God, because it is logically possible that there should be nothing
at all, total non-being.
The
argument briefly stated is: the real is that which can be known by
at least some mind.
Anthony King in The British Constitution (2007), for example, considered a line of
argument that
briefly came to the fore during the turbulent 1970s when adversarial politics and the extremism of party political rides on the «ideological big - dipper» occurred, alleged to have led to economic stagnation, political chaos and a society
at odds with itself (270).
Having
briefly glanced
at it, his main
argument seems to come from overlaying the CO2 records
at the same stage of different glacial cycles, and that seems quite hard to do, to me — William]
To repeat
briefly the
argument, best practice methods that only look
at successful organizations lack variation in the dependent variable.
Having
briefly glanced
at it, his main
argument seems to come from overlaying the CO2 records
at the same stage of different glacial cycles, and that seems quite hard to do, to me — William]
KR - I
briefly looked
at Spencer Weart and despite being a believer in global warming comes out against a recent
argument for the consensus here.