Sentences with phrase «justify accepting the claim»

I can not determine anything that is first person, and you very well may have good justified reasons for your belief, and all I can say is that I don't have evidence to justify accepting the claim.

Not exact matches

Metz is convinced that faith can not accept this relativization, and accordingly it is an essential task of fundamental theology... to defend, justify or give an account of the authenticity of religion, in opposition to those systems that claim to be meta - theories of theology».6 It can not do this by developing a still more comprehensive overview.

Although such processes may be beneficial for communities whose goal is social cohesion (e.g., a religious or activist movement), they can be devastating for scientific communities by leading to widely - accepted claims that reflect the scientific community's blind spots more than they reflect justified scientific conclusions.

Regarding the charge against Oreskes of anti-Semitism, OK I'll accept your assurance that you don't throw such accusations around lightly, but even so the fact that the four people you mentioned who all featured prominently in MoD had Jewish sounding names is hardly enough in itself to justify such a claim.

Either people accept that these scientific studies are presenting reasonable findings derived from legitimate methodologies, or they invent conspiracy theories to justify the claim that the vast majority of scientists working in this field are falsifying the data and research.

I accept that the disclosure of the report can not perhaps be fully justified under the claimed headline re: solar forcings.

«Although neoskeptics claim to accept the reality» that humans are changing the climate, «their inference that inaction is justified seriously under - emphasizes some well - established characteristics of [man - made climate change] that are important for informing choices,» the authors wrote.

Therefore, through the recognition of the primacy of EU law norms, but with the crucial qualification that such primacy is conditional on the constitutional authorisation of the domestic legal order in accordance with Parliamentary Sovereignty, the majority of the Supreme Court justices justify their claim that «we would not accept that the so - called fundamental rule of recognition (ie the fundamental rule by reference to which all other rules are validated) underlying UK laws has been varied by the 1972 Act or would be varied by its repeal» [Paragraph 60].

The CPRC accepted this point but considered that such claimants will be able to justify only offering a 5 % discount in very strong claims.

Even if (which was not accepted) MPs were justified in anticipating that the details of their claims for ACA would not normally be disclosed, once it emerged, as the tribunal had found, that the operation of the ACA system was deeply flawed, public scrutiny of the details of individual claims was inevitable.

The case demonstrates that the class of easement is not closed; and in R (Kigen and another) v Secretary of State for the Home Dept [2015] EWCA Civ 1286 the Court of Appeal confirmed that the court may not accept that delays in the grant of legal aid justify a delay in pursuing judicial review claims (read our blog here).

You are right that no judge would accept the unsubstantiated claims Benchers so often use to justify their decisions.

He justified this idea by stating that applying the fixed costs regime to claims over # 250,000 «would be too great a change for the profession to accept».