Sentences with phrase «in logical reasoning»

That, in turn, reduces our cognitive capacity («the psychological mechanisms that underlie our ability to solve problems, retain information, engage in logical reasoning, and so on») and our executive control («our ability to manage our cognitive activities, including planning, attention, initiating, and inhibiting actions, and controlling impulses».

It required them to engage in logical reasoning by application of the common law doctrine of ratiocination.

Did the author succeed in logical reasoning?

If anyone has ever taken a class in logical reasoning, would know that emotive language doesn't properly equate to straight logicalitly in an argument.

As the tween years begin, children become skilled at categorizing people and objects, another development in logical reasoning.

Both are instances of ignorance in logical reasoning and understanding of science especially in regards to human nature.

Not exact matches

In addition to the personal, emotional reasons for accepting death, there are also some logical arguments for it.

«Abusive narcissists and sociopaths employ a logical fallacy known as «moving the goalposts» in order to ensure that they have every reason to be perpetually dissatisfied with you.

This plays a big role in investor behavior: Investors have a (bad) habit of selling winners and not letting losers go because of loss aversion rather than for logical financial reasons.

The logical reasoning why gold stocks have performed poorly in the recent run up in gold prices is as follows.

Critics of the Yahoo ban said it flew in the face of a seemingly logical march toward remote work, a trend fueled by technology, worker preferences, long commutes, and a wide variety of other reasons.

If you enter an obvious price action setup like that and you've placed your stop loss at a logical spot in - line with the existing market structure, there's no reason to panic if the market moves against you and almost stops you out.

In my own case, it grew over a considerable period of time, partly as a result of what perhaps may be called logical reasoning, and partly from observing the successes and failure of others, but much of it through the more painful method of learning from my own mistakes» Phil Fisher

For these reasons I have to assume this whole «sending dilbit by rail is dangerous» is a bogus threat because it simply would not be done that way in any logical system.

In my mind are logical reasons to believe.

If you are too stupid to understand the logical fallacy you are engaging in, then I won't bother trying to point out your fallacious reasoning skills any longer.

@HawaiiGuest You see your reasoning goes against the most logical reasoning, even the experts see flaws in their reasoning.

In a similar way I think you argumentation with TheOldAdam was largely emotional and not logical — though it had the pretense of reason.

There absolutely NO logical reason whatsoever that anyone would NEED to «disprove» the existence of something that has NEVER been show to have EVER existed in the first place!

The many of pure potentiality constitutes a multiplicity within which «there are no ultimate exclusions, expressive in logical terms,» for the simple reason that «such exclusions are decided by the finitude of circumstance» (cf. MT 75 — 76).

However, the main point that I was trying to make is that I object to you blindly asserting that «believers» can not furnish logical, well - reasoned arguments in support of their position.

You're only responsible for giving logical reasons for your belief in Christ.

Saying (or even implying) that Jesus» silence in the Synoptics is tantamount to an absence of clear teaching is to engage in the logical fallacy of «reasoning from silence,» which is built upon shaky rationality.

«If you gave some solid reasons why this necromancy is false,» and «You're only responsible for giving logical reasons for your belief in Christ.»

Donna, the reason that people are so critical of religion in the scientific community, is often based in very logical reasoning.

What a question i was so pondering upon this i burnt the potatoes for tea but i managed to rescue them from the brink of distruction any way where was i. To me love is not the act in itself because that is a response to love or to be loved.Nor is it a feeling because sometimes we choose to love others despite our feelings we lay aside our own desires for the sake of others.Nor is love confined to reason because it isnt always logical or reasonable and can be totally illogical.

Since morality, or beliefs, religious or otherwise, strike me as the key driving force (after all, I'm even posting this comment in CNN's «Belief Blog») in an anti-choice individuals logical reasoning for thinking the way they do, I would like to know exactly how making abortion illegal will help you sleep at night, or register as a moral victory.

In this reasoning, Augustine was more logical than Thomas who started from the cosmos.

When the institution of the university developed in the Middle Ages and the writings of Aristotle were rediscovered, theological schooling stressed far more than it previously had discursive reasoning, technical logical skill, and academic specialization.

The logical 2 reasons were that I was still in a daze and dreamed the noise.

Above in addition to many other scientific discoveries that have been stated in the Quran that was revealed 1400 years ago are one strong reason any logical person would believe in its authenticity and trust that this book is from God and that God exists!

The bad reasoning behind this thesis, which combines guilt by association with the logical fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc (the ecumenical movement became «liberal» because it was concerned for church union and social demonstration of the gospel), is part of the theological DDT in evangelical soil which inhibits the growth and maturing of the present awakening.

When you discard reason in order to paper over the logical difficulties of your god do you it with reason or without reason?

In the first instance there could be reasons of a rational logical sort, reasons which challenge the coherence of the concept of God as that concept lies among the other concepts central to Whitehead's speculative scheme.

If you want to be logical or reason then make your own religion and follow it the Bible clearly states gay behavior is immoral and detestable in Gods view.

The reason for including classes and relations as part of the content of mathematics in «Mathematics» is that the theory of classes and relations, like all mathematics under the thesis of Principia Mathematica, is supposed to be deducible from the «ultimate logical premises» (MAT 292).

Neither should we choose any of the numerous works in which Whitehead establishes mathematics as derivative from the abstract theory of classes or intuitive set theory, because in these works he acknowledges the paradoxes in set theory that drove him to affirm for a time Russell's logistic thesis that mathematics is the «science concerned with the logical deduction of consequences from the general premises of all reasoning» (MAT 291).

For example, after trying a number of definitions of mathematics, Whitehead settled in that article on Russell's definition of mathematics as the «science concerned with the logical deduction of consequences from the general premises of all reasoning» (MAT 291), In fact, the article «Mathematics» is the most accessible, most approving and best summary of Principia Mathematica ever done by Whiteheain that article on Russell's definition of mathematics as the «science concerned with the logical deduction of consequences from the general premises of all reasoning» (MAT 291), In fact, the article «Mathematics» is the most accessible, most approving and best summary of Principia Mathematica ever done by WhiteheaIn fact, the article «Mathematics» is the most accessible, most approving and best summary of Principia Mathematica ever done by Whitehead.

Now, could it possibly be that the reason the answer is out of reach is because the bible was written by numerous, imperfect human beings, under the influence of their own religious biases, and all those writings have been complied, hundreds of years later, by men of equal imperfectness and religious biases, so as to render any logical discussion about what the hell was their intention in writing what the wrote, completely implausible?

The outcome of being clueless, The bible vs logical theology, Yes, twisting faith into self serving religious ideal and then placing it in the hands of primitive reasoning will always enforce an authoritarian ignorance that leads to this foolishness.

False equivalency — it's logical to question supernatural beliefs that essentially have people believing in, for all intents and purposes, magic; whereas it is illogical to question why some would choose not to believe in the same magic due to their adherence to logic and reason.

The reason for this is that such a position can itself be held in good faith, as far as it goes: one can, without logical inconsistency, maintain that the laws of nature (if completely understood) do (or could) explain the phenomena studied in the sciences.

I may not believe in Jesus but I can absolutely provide you logical and defensible reasons for my opinions on the morality of various acts or beliefs.

There was a time when SOME of these «rules» may have been practical or had a logical reason for them in that time period (for example, the rules against eating certain animals could easily be explained by diseases that were not understood then that were commonly acquired by people that ate them.)

This means that if terms like «relative» and «absolute» are taken in their broadest meaning, without regard to distinctions of logical type, Hartshorne has sufficient reason for saying that they can be used in systematically different senses and, therefore, are analogical, not univocal, in application to deity.

I believe, in fact, that the logical reason of man operates in this field of divinity exactly as it has always operated in love, or in patriotism, or in politics, or in any other of the wider affairs of life, in which our passions or our mystical intuitions fix our beliefs beforehand.

For in that case the assertion of God's sovereignty would be seen as a universal truth which can by logical reasoning be made intelligible to everyone; the miracle would then be regarded as a universally accredited, extraordinary event, from which the conclusion may be drawn that it depends upon a divine cause.

Atheists state that there is no logical reason whatsoever to believe in one, and certainly no evidence to support the existence of one.

In an earlier attack he argues that (for some reason) using the «if, then» argument (if torturing a man will held defend our troops, then we ought to torture him) to support the use of torture by government officials on our enemies, isn't legitimate, because (crazy logical leap) many interrogators say torture doesn't work -LRB-!?).

Every moral law in the New Testament has a good and logical reason behind it.