Sentences with phrase «of circular argument»

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

Emmanuel is apparently a master of the circular argument.

Textbook example of circular argument, the attribution conclusion fitted to the premise.

Teacher and school improvement is driven by the notion of improving teaching and schools, which is kind of a circular argument.

[2] The individual components of a circular argument will sometimes be logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true, and will not lack relevance...»

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»).

This kind of circular argument may feel like logic to you, but it is fallacious.

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.

Since it is impossible to prove god exists or does not exist, this book is likely a complicated series of circular arguments.

If one of your circular arguments involves a static difference of opinion — one that will not change under any circumstances — you should just let it go.

Not exact matches

Without mutual deference then never ending circular arguments persist with a lot of pissed off and exhausted people.

The fact that you honestly believe your ridiculously circular «logic» even begins to approach a reasoned, well - supported argument is all the proof needed to demonstrate the destructive power of religion.

Your circular arguments are simply misrepresentations of how rocks and fossils are dated.

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.

Kent, you babbled» «It amazes me that you'll believe the liars of this world that care less about your soul, but when Christians that actually read His truth tell you what He wants, you go into circular arguments that proves that you can talk / type but does nothing for loving and following Jesus.»

It amazes me that you'll believe the liars of this world that care less about your soul, but when Christians that actually read His truth tell you what He wants, you go into circular arguments that proves that you can talk / type but does nothing for loving and following Jesus.

Similar arguments dispose of the exactly circular view of planetary orbits.

Nevertheless, this kind of argument is exceedingly circular and hence relativistic.

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!

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 nature.

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

To avoid circular arguments, biochemical and physiological methods, independent of human milk, are used to define these requirements.

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

V: You need to be more specific if you want to accuse him of presenting a circular argument.

«My comment was deleted» is naturally susceptible to circular logic; the supposed invisibility of a comment is a strange form of a final and incontrovertible argument.

The only pseudo-scientific circular argument is to say that this relationship is a result of GCM runs.

If you stay, try asking and commenting on other than shallow circular analysis of what constitutes straw man, argument from authority and scientific consensus.

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

Were it not begging the question, the missing premise would render the argument viciously circular, and while never persuasive, arguments of the form «A therefore A» are logically valid.

The point of my argument was to show that if that were true then the center of this circular orbit would have to be on the opposite side of the Sun from the barycenter.

Though perhaps not as circular as this argument between you and me has become, as evidenced by your need to repeat yourself, having run out of fresh arguments.

Because the premise is no different from and therefore as questionable as its conclusion, a circular argument violates the criterion of acceptability.»

I'm too busy to be botherin» wid the rehearsed and circular arguments that passes for thought on both sides of the battlelines.

Willis Essenbach brings out how IPCC is begging the question with a circular argument on the linearity of climate sensitivity: Climate models assume linearity.

One has to be careful of statements less unstated assumptions make one's argument circular.

The first criteria is said to be a rather circular argument, while the second seems to ignore the accuracy of the results.

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.

The author is either confused or It is a circular argument based on slight of hand.

His argument is, of course, this identical piece of circular reasoning, but repeating it doesn't make it logically valid.

Well I had certainly not intended a circular argument, I guess I didn't understand your question, and I'm certainly vague about quite what you're asking, especially as your last text covers a lot of ground.

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.

It's kind of a circular aspect of the argument; given a hotspot it's going to end up cooling more effectively no matter where it is, but if it persists longer then it's true that it's going to be even more effective.

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

The Mann, Schmidt, and Rutherford comment letter (hereinafter referred to as MS&R let2010) concerning elements of the McShane and Wyner 2010 paper for the Annals of Applied Statistics (hereinafter referred to as the M&W 2010 paper) is a marvel of fallacious arguments and circular logic.

Our previous post, and one the week before looked at the arguments emerging from climate activists about what to make of the existence of an email news circular, operated by Marc Morano, the Communications Director at the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, under Republican Senator James Inhofe.

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