Sentences with phrase «kinds of arguments from»

The are, however, a variety of other kinds of arguments from ignorance.

One thing is certain: his interpretation is difficult to argue against, not because it is obviously correct, but because his interpretation is so heavily dependent upon a kind of argument from similitude whose value is difficult to assess.

Baker holds that Mays» interpretation is difficult to argue against, not because it is obviously incorrect, but because it is so heavily dependent upon a kind of argument from similitude whose value is difficult to assess..

Not exact matches

«Any argument they make for keeping that in would result in the same kinds of legal challenges presented by Section 3 (c), which poses the question of, «Why have people from these countries been deemed more dangerous than others?»»

Listen to this quote from Ann Florini, Senior Fellow, The Brookings Institution and ask yourself if it applies to your organization: «NGOs are a bunch of people whose currency of power is information and the ability to make arguments and persuade people to change how things are done... to have that kind of power you have to have access to information.»

Unless I see some kind of, at least high - school level assertion or argument from you, that we can go after....

Denying that some of these myths sprang from actual people at the time kind of undercuts our argument.

We've seen from his subsequent actions that the likelihood is that GZ felt he was some kind of vigilante plus we find out that he was still upset from an argument with his wife.

A highly valid argument coming from a socialist; but today it is gospel truth for a great many Christians, indeed for the best and most serious Christians — those who think of Christianity as something more than words and kind sentiments.

On the one hand, his analysis supports the kinds of arguments that suggest part of the disparity of pay between men and women stems from the choices they make in relation to who they are as men and women.

And I'll go one step further... even the non-Monotheistic religions: under similar arguments perhaps those are part of the quilted tapestries that God desires from man kind.

If we accept Jamison's argument that the greater community might derive an evolutionary benefit from containing a number of mentally ill people, since such an illness is often accompanied by unusual creative talents, what does this say about the kind of Creator who guides the evolutionary process?

If the argument here is correct, the two developments result from some of the same causes: The American kind of church - state separation meant no church monopolized religious symbols; courts were called upon to articulate ultimate purpose and justice; and judges felt little ambivalence in doing so.

Byrnes complains that, once I had moved us from the playing field of heterosexual vs. homosexual to that of marital vs. nonmarital (where being marital includes being procreative in kind), I did not play the game through to the end and give a larger argument attacking nonmarital sex.

Pursued with the right kind of arguments and with sufficient vigor, an escape from the «exemptions ghetto» can bring us out into an open field of religious freedom in full — and of moral freedom in full for all, thanks to the indispensable leadership role of religious conscience, and the recognition of the duty of men and women to obey God before any authority of the state.

I submit that arguments of this kind can have the force that Hartshorne takes them to have only if the whole of our knowledge of God, beyond our unavoidable experience of «the inclusive something,» can be derived from such knowledge as we have of ourselves, and hence is merely symbolic rather than truly analogical.

Justin notes that Paul's rhetorical strategy here is to begin by talking about wicked people who had turned from God and gotten caught up in all kinds of sins, only to turn the argument on his readers by declaring, «Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges.

Such is the kind of reasoning that needs to be advanced in the public square: not an argument from sectarian exceptionalism or the unique privileges of a private religious conscience, but arguments from the inalterable structure of things.

That his concern is legitimate few will deny, and wholly apart from the theoretical issue noted above, this concern constitutes a strong practical argument for a liberal polity (which does no more than promote «some kind of equilibrium, necessarily unstable, between the different aspirations of different groups of human beings»).

However, right next to thestatements quoted, we read a passage in the seventh chapter of First Corinthians that leads us to see differently Paul's teaching as a whole: «I wish that all were as I myself am, [he repeats his favorite argument for abstaining from marriage]- but each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind, and one of another» (1 Cor 7:7).

Your mind can not simply create reasoned arguments without some kind of fact from books.

One may indeed be entirely without them; probably more than one of you here present is without them in any marked degree; but if you do have them, and have them at all strongly, the probability is that you can not help regarding them as genuine perceptions of truth, as revelations of a kind of reality which no adverse argument, however unanswerable by you in words, can expel from your belief.

These assertions often do not differ markedly from the kinds of theoretical and explanatory arguments prevalent in the social science literature, but they serve as rhetorical appeals aimed at shaping the way we think about our world, the ways we vote, and the policies we support.

It uses a kind of Platonic inquiry that has disappeared from modern argument.

The Israeli Labor Party, which governed Israel from its beginning as a state in 1946 until Prime Minister Menachem Begin took power in June, had avoided cultivating the kind of American evangelical support expressed in the recent newspaper ads because it knew that to engage in religious arguments over national boundaries would be self - defeating.

His argument seems to be directed against a certain kind of historical «paleoconservative» who sees a Golden Age in the social institutions or social spirit of some past time; yet his refutation of such a perspective invokes progress in dentistry, rhetorically shifting the evaluative criteria from sociology to technology.

You could theoretically argue that5 Eto'o offers more playing deeper and providing from midfield but Suarez's herculean work rate kind of cancels that argument out.

Was he drawing a different tradition or was he developing his ideas through his polemics, kind of making it up from whatever argument carried the day?

Naturally, any debate about state power and the role of technology can not be divorced from wider arguments about the kind of politics and society we wish to create.

Everybody would be angry about the drug dealer - the point I was trying to make is that the reciprocity argument applied to him is different in kind from that applied to someone for whom «unearned wealth» accumulates independent of the taxpayer.

The argument is that the increased separation of the Antarctic land mass from South America led to the creation of the powerful Antarctic Circumpolar Current which acted as a kind of water barrier and effectively blocked the warmer, less salty waters from the North Atlantic and Central Pacific from moving southwards towards the Antarctic land mass leading to the isolation of the Antarctic land mass and lowered temperatures which allowed the ice sheets to form.

In effect the argument is that if you've been a soldier, and you have some of these kinds of symptoms, that you are very likely to be labeled as having PTSD; and in fact, maybe you're suffering from a completely different problem or something that's not even a really deep - seeded problem at all.

I like to listen to both sides of an argument, look at the facts (not theories) from both sides and especially look at our evolutionary history to see what kinds of foods people all over the world have eaten for thousands, and hundreds of thousands, of years that sustain optimal health.

(3) Yet it needs to be mentioned, as variations on this kind of argument have shaped views of both Spielberg's place in film history, and his artistic merit, from early in his career.

He said: «Our argument is that if you don't come from a home where your parents speak in a grammatically correct form day in day out, if you don't have a home surrounded by books, where reading isn't a daily occurrence, [children] need that kind of structural instruction and teaching about how sentences should be constructed.

However, the reason these kinds of questions are tricky is because the questioner, from his / her point of view tells me the critical information (critical from his or her point of view)-- and the folks on the other side of the argument would have provided me with other information that they think matters.

Sure, there are differences of opinions between the two books, and you might question the methodology used in the selection process, but part of the fun of being a fan derives from the kind of arguments that these volumes will undoubtedly generate.

Basic lines of argument have not changed, although the rhetoric now has gone from a frenzied accusation fest to kind of exhausted yammer.

Beds are one category likely to draw customers into an actual store, rather than online, because people like to see, touch and feel this merchandise — another argument for offering high - quality products as these will not only withstand this kind of scrutiny but will actually benefit from it.

If you feel my rebutting of Killian's skyrocketry regarding Knoblauch et al (2018) is» exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone's argument» so as to make it» much easier to present (my) own position as being reasonable» and that» this kind of dishonesty serves to undermine honest rational debate»; if you feel all that, you would have more sympathy from me if you were able to demonstrate this alleged» dishonesty», or even better begin by demonstrating some justification for the skyrocketry.

It's been nice in recent days to see some strong advocates for curbs in emissions of greenhouse gases shift from the more overheated, and unsupported, rhetoric they used earlier this year in attempting a kind of «kitchen sink» argument aiming to tie virtually every recent harmful weather event to warming, even those — like powerful tornadoes — for which there is no link and certainly no trend.

And the same kind of argument can be made for any other limiting factors, from money to space to raw materials to psychological or social factors.

My take home from these emails is that my argument isn't particularly original (this kind of thing is endemic and widely discussed in other fields) and my argument was too narrow (I didn't include the increasing financial interests and big $ $ in all this, as well as politicians investing their careers in this.)

And through conversations with others in the growing climate justice movement, I began to see all kinds of ways that climate change could become a catalyzing force for positive change — how it could be the best argument progressives have ever had to demand the rebuilding and reviving of local economies; to reclaim our democracies from corrosive corporate influence; to block harmful new free trade deals and rewrite old ones; to invest in starving public infrastructure like mass transit and affordable housing; to take back ownership of essential services like energy and water; to remake our sick agricultural system into something much healthier; to open borders to migrants whose displacement is linked to climate impacts; to finally respect Indigenous land rights — all of which would help to end grotesque levels of inequality within our nations and between them.

Do not hesitate to claim that the future is unknowable, even if it is self - contradictory; rinse and repeat arguments from error, rejecting along the way any kind of empirical knowledge; even rebrand «knowledge» as «assumptions» and dismiss all predictions as guesses.

Actually, I've argued with «realists» that assuming that Judith's science is biased by her commercial interests is unscientific, fallacious, and an example of motivated reasoning (and the kind of bad arguments I've criticized from «skeptics»).

It sounds great in a debate, and I'm in no way a denier, but it always kind of bothers me that this isn't really an argument from evidence — assuming of course that you're arguing about whether or not climate change is real.

However, slowly, I evolved as I realized that there is a tremendous amount of scientific work that would be excluded from this kind of demarcation argument.

The use of labels such as «warmist» and «skeptic,» is symptomatic of the kind of heuristic in which the correct inference is identified by argumentum ad vericundium (argument from authority).

I published the whole FRAND passage of Judge Posner's ruling, and while Judge Posner makes reference to eBay in his overall denial of injunctive relief in the Apple v. Motorola case, you can read the original text in that blog post and you'll see that Judge Posner's position on FRAND is entirely independent from the four eBay factors: it's a general competition / antitrust and common sense kind of argument.