Sentences with phrase «in circular arguments»

Experts insist that whatever the circumstances, there is always something positive for you to covertly do while your colleagues discuss irrelevant information or engage in circular arguments.

see... YOu get caught in a circular argument... with your logic

Very well written, my only criticism being that «begs the question» traditionally meant to engage in a circular argument rather than «compels one to ask».

Not exact matches

You keep saying that, but all I've seen are versions of the circular argument that your god is real because it says so in the bible, and that the bible is real because it is the word of your god.

Even you acknowledge that the Bible is not proof unless you already believe in its accuracy and veracity, a classic circular argument.

Johnny — That's a circular argument with no basis in fact.

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?

Note that the argument involves no circular «sneaking in» of the notion of a beginning of the past.

It is you who has no argument... not one that stands ground in the 21st century and not one that isn't circular.

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!

The only «evidence» offered in favour of this hypothesis is that it provides a seemingly rational alternative to the argument for God from science — classic circular logic!

That kind of circular argument even goes back to explanations of the origin of the universe — according to the big bang theory (which I don't really have a problem with in the «big picture»).

In essence, the rhetorical weight of his argument seems to assume God's existence in the first place, which makes the argument fundamentally circular in naturIn essence, the rhetorical weight of his argument seems to assume God's existence in the first place, which makes the argument fundamentally circular in naturin the first place, which makes the argument fundamentally circular in naturin nature.

Every argument presented in support of supernatural belief is circular, because it invariably leads to the protective harbor of faith.

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.

[Box 26] AAAS and Congress, lobbying, 1959 - 1987 Congress, 1986 Arctic, 1981 Legislative Branch, 1981 - 1984 Executive Branch, pre-1985 OMB Circular, 1983 Science Policy: A Working Glossary, 1978 Science Policy Task Force Congressional Research Service, 1986 Environmental Protection Agency House Committee on Science and Technology, 1986 Office of Management and Budget Office of Science and Technology Policy, 1982 Office of Technology Assessment, 1980 Senate State Department (2 Folders) AAAS Science, Engineering, and Diplomacy Fellows, Lunch and Orientation, 1983 Tax Bills, 1981 Edwards vs Aguilard, Louisiana Creationist Suit, 1986 Edwards vs Aguilard, NAS amicus brief Edwards vs Aguilard, People for the American Way amicus brief Edwards vs Aguilard, Supreme Court arguments Hutchinson vs. Proxmire, amicus brief, 1978 Southeastern College vs. Frances Davis, amicus brief, 1979 State Department, 1976 - 1984 Human Subjects Research, 1979 Controversy over Inhaber Article in Science, 1979 Three Mile Island, 1979 Federal appropriations, universities and pork barrel projects

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.

Spencer, I may well be reading too much or too little into your argument, so forgive me if I do, but it appears to be becoming circular in nature.

Let's stipulate (in hopes of making some progress) that the «it's circular» argument is not persuasive.

Enough parameters (two extra in this case) does make the argument essentially circular.

that there was indeed a circular argument in the poster.

In short, I think although the uncertainties are there, as you correctly point out, the limited information you give can be misleading and the «kludge» argument that the IPCC using indirect modelling makes their argument «circular» doesn't have evidence to back it up.

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.

I fail to see the circular reasoning in that argument.

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.

I'm encouraged to see how much uncertainty there is in your assessment — it helps to explain some of the endless circular arguments I've seen and occasionally contributed to.

At places in the Jesus paper the argument referred back to the CC paper creating a neat, if logically flawed, circular argument.

Clyde Rhodes says: August 5, 2010 at 7:36 am «It seems to me that it is a circular argument to assume equilibrium in order to prove equilibrium.

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.

As usual, lots of hidden zingers and circular assumptions in a warmist argument.

This is the same type of circular argument one often finds in religion.

This kind of «circular arguments» are only assumptions without any evidence in reality.

But since those are the exact points in question (whether the assumptions are correct, and whether the model reflects those assumptions correctly), you can see that using model results as evidence is a circular argument.

In a classic circular argument, they programmed temperature to increase with a CO2 increase then argued that the model output proved their assumption.

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

All the arguments I am reading in this blog are based upon circular thinking.

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.

It's circular reasoning, and it's the same argument that we heard all last fall as part of the fact - free DOE FERC proposal, which boils down to this: our assets can't compete in the marketplace because they're too expensive, so you (meaning, the ratepayer) should pay us more money to stay online.

So, unless one wants to make an incredibly circular argument, the models are useless in determining how much CO2 affects history.

It's not a circular argument at all unless you're some crank who believes in electric universe theories

In fact, Motorola's enterprising circular screen is so attractive it instantly became the antithesis of the «smartwatches look like a miniaturized cell phone worn on your wrist» argument when Google first announced Android Wear in MarcIn fact, Motorola's enterprising circular screen is so attractive it instantly became the antithesis of the «smartwatches look like a miniaturized cell phone worn on your wrist» argument when Google first announced Android Wear in Marcin March.