Sentences with phrase «except by argument»

But how else do we arrive at the right theories except by argument and criticism?

Not exact matches

Jefferson knew that every state in the Union (except Rhode Island) had a state sponsored religion since before the days of the Revolution, so by relegating himself to the settled national issue, he could not easily be accused of more atheist sentiments.So, what does this mean to the issue of «separation of church and state» for today's argument?

As soon as an animal becomes of no more use to humans, as for example when the products now used from whales are superseded by synthetics, then there are no arguments left for the preservation of whales except that we like looking at them.

In a statement quoted by Hasker in his discussion of what he calls a «more subtle form» of the above argument (although it simply is my argument), I said that according to traditional free will theism it would have been possible for God to create «creatures who could enjoy all the same values which we human beings enjoy, except that they would not really be free» (Process 74).

If «something» always existed and «nothing» never existed, then you've got no argument --- but then again, you never had one except as provided by your own definitions that were never proved in the first place.

The screenplay by T.S. Nowlin (based on James Dashner's book) never comes up with a firm argument against WCKD, except to point out that the organization's methods are cruel and often resort to force.

It may seem like a meaningless argument, except that such an amount is dictated by the current uniform salary schedule, which requires those below - average states to raise each teacher's salary.

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

Creationists attack evolution by false arguments with not data except its just to complex to have evolved.

It is my own position, except that the «strength» of the isothermal argument is so much greater than that of a temperature lapse — given that it straight up violates the second law of thermodynamics — that the default position of any real scientist should be roughly the same as it is whenever somebody proposes a perpetual motion machine, or that they can negate gravity by means of a simple electronic device they built in their basement, or have worked out the One True Theory of Everything in their spare time, in spite of the fact that they never actually took calculus or physics in college (or may not have attended college).

You are also comparing ice sheets and glaciers by the way, but it does not much change your argument except for the relevance of rate of retreat comparison.

The idea that companies would make no change except raise prices is an anti-capitalist argument made by people like Naomi Klein and the Pope.

The same argument goes in reverse except in our case by emitting CO2 ourselves we're ensuring that the earth is always in equilibrium with its Temp / Life balance / Atmospheric CO2 level.

Looking just at the remarks in this thread, how many respondents show no pretense of politeness, have never been constructive (except in the sense of constructing fallacious arguments), could never persuade with such tract and bile, and show hypocrisy with every line to such degree that one can be safe in concluding they would never be persuaded by science or reason?

Miskolczi's argument (I think) is that CAGW proponents have to be out to lunch if they can believe water vapor is a negative temperature feedback EXCEPT when temperature rise is caused by CO2, in which case it magically becomes a positive feedback.

Those of us who have none of your financial or political interests in this question and are merely trying to find out whether and to what extent there really is a «climate crisis» are taken seriously by everyone except the climate extremists, who are increasingly ignored precisely because they will not engage in calm, rational, and above all scientific argument.

Regarding your second question, the paper of Frank et al agrees with my paper in many points, except for the argument on the global warming caused by emissions of carbon dioxide through human activities.

Yet we find ourselves in the midst of a national debate, highlighted by Supreme Court arguments this week, over whether the Constitution means what it says by the words, «The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, except when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.»