Sentences with phrase «circular arguments by»

Not exact matches

Not convincing» which is funny circular argument because you state that everyone of that age «average education level of individuals is higher now than in the dark ages» so by your standard nothing of that age can be verified?

Well, FAITH, there's the problem... that gibberish in the bible was just made up by «some guy» to keep the peasants behaving in a manner that whomever wrote it thought was a good way to behave... some of those guys were wise, yes, and there are benefits to following some of the «guidelines» set forth in the Bible... but it's a circular argument to use the Bible as a reason to have faith, because you have to first BELIEVE in the deity, THEN believe that the deity inspired the writings, THEN you can take the writings as «truth»... I'm two steps back, not believing in the deity at all (Yay, Atheists!

All the evidence for the divine is founded in the bible, a book made by man, and is therefore a circular and faulty argument.

To blame the situation on the lack of confidence in him by fellow Labour MPs is a circular argument: they have no confidence because he is useless.

Thus, it seems like a circular argument: to produce methane (by microbes), one needs methane.

Teacher and school improvement is driven by the notion of improving teaching and schools, which is kind of a circular argument.

I'd guess he means research characterized by measurement and research expert Gerald Bracey as «a circular argument which defines effective teachers as those who raise test scores, then uses test score gains to determine who's an effective teacher.»

And we have Curry's own circular argument, climate models are not fit for purpose because Big Natual Oscillation is not addressed by the climate models.

But so far you have not explained with any clarity what you mean by «the carbon crisis», except in this apparently circular argument:

In short Global Warming is akin to a circular argument that can be won by whoever is doing the science.

Though perhaps not as circular as this argument between you and me has become, as evidenced by your need to repeat yourself, having run out of fresh arguments.

But one has to be careful that the unstated assumptions in this argument by the IPCC concerning the post 1940 period does not become a circular argument when comparing to post 1980 period.

The main flaws of the result there are caused by assumed parameters (e.g. increase of anthropogenic CO2 content in atmosphere etc.) based on inverse calculations (i.e. circular arguments) instead of proper findings in reality.

From the sidelines, we see: AGW promoters getting rich and / or building careers off of circular reasoning, confirmation bias and endless whitewashes, with a great deal of argument by arrogance tossed in.

Our previous post, and one the week before looked at the arguments emerging from climate activists about what to make of the existence of an email news circular, operated by Marc Morano, the Communications Director at the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, under Republican Senator James Inhofe.

I will show here that the first three IPCC assessment reports contain erroneous scientific arguments, which have never been retracted or formally corrected, but at least have now been abandoned by the IPCC — while the last two reports, AR4 and AR5, use an argument that seems to be circular and does not support their conclusion.

Avoiding bootstrapped plausibility and circular reasoning in detection and attribution arguments can be accomplished by:

The claim by advocates seems to be that the only way to do an attribution study is with a climate model, which, as Judith notes, is a circular argument.

This subsection argues that the IPCC's detection and attribution arguments involve circular reasoning, and that confidence in the evidence and argument is elevated by bootstrapped plausibility.

So, essentially, he provides circular argument of anthropogenic garbage by referencing IPCC 2007 report, yet IPCC has stated they do not do science but put together different scenarios using grey literature, propaganda, news clipping, and the supposed science K.T. does.

He also presents a ridiculously Kafka-esque circular argument against the law being reviewed by the Supreme Court.