You have every right to feel that way but I do not think
your conclusion follows from the remarks of Lord Sumption.
The same
conclusion follows from its sudden cessation because a greenhouse warming can not be stopped without removing the absorbing molecules from air.
When people (climate also) go wretchedly wrong is that they fail to produce a sequence of rational steps where one
conclusion follows from another.
If Mann forwarded the email with no intention on his part that any emails should be deleted, and if the gentlemen conducting the inquiry accepted that that was the fact of the matter, then the Penn State
conclusion follows from the premises.
But read the fine print because
this conclusion follows from two big decisions the authors made, both of which are highly debatable.
This conclusion followed from their very holistic view, which many people today espouse on different grounds, according to which the material and the spiritual, the body and soul, are inseparably united.
What moral
conclusions follow from their findings?
Conclusions follow from premises by an inexorable logic from which there is no departure.
The first of
these conclusions follows from the preceding discussion in a relatively unproblematic way.
Does
the conclusion follow from them?
does
the conclusion follow from the analysis?
Which itself suggests how much «momentum» and how little the rational approach «
conclusions follow from facts, and when facts change so should conclusions» (to paraphrase IIRC Keynes) enters the dialog even at ClimateEtc.
Trivial observations (e.g., long lists of Member States that have at any one time been involved in access to documents litigation without any convincing
conclusion following from such an enumeration) are succeeded by confused conceptualisations (e.g., the EU institutions are introduced twice as a distinct category of actor), or even outright overdramatization, such as when the authors argue that «[a] t one stroke, any authority of the Member States -LSB-...] over the release of documents transmitted to the EU was set aside [by Regulation 1049/01]» (p. 216), but neglect to mention that the Member States as legislators in the Council agreed to this revision themselves, or that the Council engaged in successive internal negotiations to settle the question of what was to be considered a «Member State document».
In its judgement, the Constitutional Court first expressed its view on
the conclusions following from the judgement of the Court of Justice of the EU.
(ii) In relation to the first issue,
the conclusion followed from two basic principles: (a) the rule that an insurer could not recover by way of subrogation more than its true outlay; and (b) the rule that collateral benefits should be taken into account in assessing damages.
Not exact matches
Sir Martin Sorrell has resigned
from WPP (NASDAQ: WPPGY)
following the
conclusion of an investigation started earlier this month into alleged personal misconduct.
The Forgotten Depression, Jim Grant's excellent book about the 1920 - 21 downturn and the recovery that
followed, has generated a burst of critical commentary
from persons anxious to reject the principal
conclusion Grant draws
from that episode.
Nevertheless, this
conclusion does
follow from his premises.
Thus, instead of pointing out that no ideology or world view automatically
follows from scientific data and theory, but represents a leap to another level of discourse, the creationists invite scientists to draw the very
conclusions that creationists claim to deplore.
If, Polanyi insists, Copernicus had
followed the procedures of «critical philosophy» and reasoned
from his experience of the world, he would not have reached his
conclusions about planetary motion.
The problem, however, is that instead of forcefully challenging all these
conclusions — which do not directly and necessarily
follow from science or
from evolutionary theory — the scientific creationists encourage them.
The conventional literary - critical judgment that the
following verses (17 - 19) were not part of the original unit is doubtless correct, but the standard critical
conclusions on vs. 16 — fragmentary, a corrupt text, distorted in transmission, et cetera — result
from the failure to recognize the difference in form and the functional relationship between Scheltrede and Drohwort, the deliberated and composed invective called forth by the received Word, the divine threat or judgment.
For example, since skin color has no demonstrable relation to intellectual ability, esthetic sensitivity, or character, it
follows that no significant
conclusions about a person's characteristically human behavior can be drawn
from the nature of his pigmentation.
We must now ask, granted that Mascall's Thomist
conclusions do not
follow necessarily
from these data in all respects, whether they constitute an intelligible and self - consistent position that does account for the data.
We must ask here whether the
conclusion that God can not be affected by events within his creation in fact
follows from the fundamental argument
from contingent to necessary being.
The
conclusion follows naturally
from the assumption, but the assumption
follows from nothing more substantial than the self «admiration of people who dabble in ideas.
But good scienctific analytical intelligent folks would not draw their final
conclusions about a religion
from those
following.
(in an appropriate format) the computer would respond negatively, indicating that this
conclusion does not logically
follow from the premises of the argument.
But why does all this matter to religious
conclusions about the methods we employ to study religion
follow from my analysis?
The first results of these metaphysical inquiries can be found in the five books of the manuscript «Notes towards a Metaphysic» (written
from September 1933 till May 1934), in which he makes an endeavor to construct a cosmological - metaphysical system of his own, 5
following the example of Whitehead's and Alexander's description of reality as a process, but based on his method elaborated in An Essay on Philosophical Method, 6 and in «Sketch of a Cosmological Theory,» the first (never published) cosmology
conclusion to The Idea of Nature.
I am indebted in what
follows to this article, although its
conclusions move in a different direction
from my own.
Simply, it means that it does not logically
follow from your premise (whoever hates etc) the
conclusion that they walk in darkness.
These are merely opinions (not scientific
conclusions) which do not
follow logically
from the statements that preceded them.
Logic is nothing more than a method of determining which
conclusions necessariy
follow from facts.
To help point the way out of the problem I will turn to the writings of Whitehead (particularly his later works), drawing
from his work certain
conclusions which, while not explicitly stated by him may nevertheless be said to
follow from his overall philosophical scheme.
I don't want to rewrite this article in english, but basically, I came to the
following conclusions 1 - that Scriptures ought to be used in close interaction with daily reality (not out the blue, in abstraction, or in academic ivory tower) 2 - it ought to be interpreted by what we could call «crucified» christians 3 - and that «crucified» christian should interpret in the context of a «crucified» community / church (because being in a close knit church is a very good way to actually be «crucified» and sanctified, and because I need insight
from others in my interpretations.
From the merely biological point of view, so to call it, this is a
conclusion to which, so far as I can now see, we shall inevitably be led, and led moreover by
following the purely empirical method of demonstration which I sketched to you in the first lecture.
Here he lets everyone know that he is not an enemy of the Torah, even if the
conclusions he draws
from the Jewish conviction that love is both core and apex of Torah observance place him in tension with many Jews, including those who
follow Jesus.
Similarly, a Catholic thinking about ius ad bellum begins
from a presumption that a contemplated war is not just — a presumption which Mr. Chambers allows for the sake of the argument, and
from which the
conclusion I argued for does
follow.
This
conclusion, like that of causal determinism, can be seen to
follow from his assumption as to the nature of the universal stuff embodied in all actual entities or events.
The
conclusion that they must be analogous
follows not
from their evident similarity, but as a deduction
from the metaphysics of materialist physicalism, with its «Democritean doctrine of mereological supervenience, or microdeterminism» (SM 96), according to which all the features of all wholes are ontologically reducible to the most elementary constituents of nature, This metaphysics, according to which these elementary constituents are devoid of experience and thereby of internal relations, does not allow for the evolutionary emergence of higher - level actualities with genuine causal powers of their own.
Church's theorem states that there exists no well defined procedure that can tell us in all cases whether a
conclusion logically
follows or not
from premises.
It entails that for any well defined logical procedure, there exist axiom systems and
conclusions more complex than the logical procedure; hence, the logical procedure can not guarantee us whether the
conclusion does or does not logically
follow from the premises.
He never himself
followed it to its
conclusion; in his long and self - revealing book there is no indication that he thought much about Sheol or thought of it differently
from his contemporaries, or had the slightest hope of resurrection out of it.
This
conclusion can also be seen to
follow from the demand of God's love as summarized in the two commandments that we shall love the Lord our God with the whole of our being and that we shall love our neighbors as ourselves.
The
conclusion is inescapable that there was in general a twofold origin of the church, with two centers in Palestine
from the lifetime of Jesus down at least to the war under Hadrian, in Galilee, and down to the war under Nero and later, in Judea — and then on into the
following centuries, when successive conquest and exodus scattered the little Christian communities far and wide, down to the Mohammedan conquest in the seventh century, and even to this day.
Moreover, he would be quick to acknowledge that the most frequent and fertile source of error in a metaphysics that
follows his method would be the inevitable human limitations upon the metaphysician's powers to abstract
from his experiences with sufficient generality for his
conclusions to be universally valid.
Since the
conclusion of a deductive argument is timelessly contained in the premises and since predictions
follow deductively
from premises stating initial conditions, time is spatialized.
But the process theologians»
conclusions do not
follow from these premises as they seem to think.
It
follows,
from this
conclusion and my earlier consideration of the externality which is contributed by the percipient, that the externality of perceptual objects can not constitute the external world that would presumably be the proper subject of metaphysical analysis.