Sentences with phrase «premise as its conclusion»

But this argument takes its premise as its conclusion: that the world is this hostile place, which demands optimal management.

Not exact matches

My philosophy department dismissed me as a futurist and the economists dismissed me as a philosopher (A little vindication: I have since had a few individuals contact me and apologize for dismissing me and in review they have found my premises and argumentation sound even if they still do not necessarily agree with my conclusions).

A logic fallacy can only be considered a fallacy IF it was used as a premise in a conclusion.

Logic dictates I respond this way as its premise and its conclusion are as flawed as one can get.

Yes, if causal determinism be true, then all true propositions about the future can be formulated as conclusions of deductive arguments in which the relevant causal laws and the initial conditions form the premises.

You may disagree with the premises of religion as much as you want, buddy, but the reasoning and conclusion leading to religious doctrine, especially catholic doctrine, are among the best works in logic in the history of mankind, made by men a lot more skilled in it than most who live today, I dare say.

They think that Edwards, believing in government by God, must have derived from that premise the conclusion that therefore preachers were his lieutenants on earth and should be recognized as gods.

The logic is valid, as in, if the premises are true then the conclusion must be true.

No proof texting needed: I don't grant the premise «God ordained all things» (at least not as you seem to be defining it), therefore the conclusion is wrong.

As Alvin Plantinga noted later (the link is no longer available), even if the premise were true, there's quite an embarrassingly large jump from there to the conclusion.

But the process theologians» conclusions do not follow from these premises as they seem to think.

Since the three main Westminster political parties all endorse the conclusions of Sir Ian Wood's recent review on how to maximise the economic recovery of oil and gas from the UK Continental Shelf (Search for UKCS Maximising Recovery Review Final Report, here), and its tacit underlying fiscal premises (namely that there is a need for a simplified fiscal regime to incentivise investment and drilling activity, as well as to ease the burden upon the new regulator of the upstream sector), it does not take the gift of prophecy to appreciate that the ultimate outcome of this subsequent review on the shape of the UK fiscal regime seems foreordained; namely, a return to the situation that prevailed before the introduction of SC, whereby the only levy on income from oil and gas fields is to be Corporation Income Tax at the standard rate levied on the likes of Starbucks and Amazon.

I always understood «begs the question» as meaning «to assume the truth of a conclusion in the process of arguing for that conclusion, by for example including the truth of the conclusion in a premise of the argument».

Nerve's promising premise is enjoyably set - up and executed, while Dave Franco and Emma Roberts delight, but, despite some impressive set pieces, it ultimately loses steam as it twists to its underwhelming conclusion.

starts to run out of steam as it nears its inevitable conclusion, and one gets the sense that the storyline was never completely developed beyond the episode's great initial premise.

I am having a hard time going from your premise to your conclusions as there is a large disconnect,

Add to that the fact that the same person who penned the post I fisked followed up with another article about why the «vast majority of self - published authors will never be taken seriously», and I've come to the conclusion that the premise he'd been as insulting — and I'm being nice here — as he was was simply to drive traffic to the site.

The premise - a basic fact or belief that is used as the basis for drawing conclusions.

A deductive argument is one which provides conclusive proof of its conclusions - if the premises are true, the conclusion must also be true as well.

If an issue based on sound science conclusions has irrefutable merit, it would not have the fatal appearance of being based on a false premise from its inception, a foregone conclusion of it as a settled science in need of action to solve it and adapt to it.

There is a very real possibility that the counterfactual scenario allows researchers to pass their premise off as a conclusion: if you assume that a world with climate change is less productive than a world without it, then, surprise surprise, when you compare a counterfactual statistic to a real world statistic, you get a result that reflects your assumptions.

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

Well, take another look — belief in AGW is irrelevant, the point is that the poster's conclusion that temperature = AGW + SAW was its premise, and this has been explicitly confirmed by Vaughan Pratt: «The sawtooth was created as the difference between Hadcrut3 and AGW.

Assuming you were referring to the «daddy» of all hiockey sticks, the Mann et al. version, there are many reasons for arriving at this conclusion, Fanny, regardless of where one sits on the ongoing scientific debate surrounding AGW and the CAGW premise, as outlined by IPCC in its AR4 report.

One is that, through the use of one or more logically incorrect hypotheses as a premise, one can reach a logically incorrect conclusion.

So, although I don't agree with your premise, at least not as starkly as you stated it, I agree that from that premise, you faithfully followed the precautionary principle to reach a conclusion.

I do in places amplify my conclusions with additional statements, such as explicitly accepting three other datasets in a sence Dr. Curry apparently hadn't considered, and rejecting the uses of any other IPCC product than what I state later — only the model runs, and only to establish «What - if» there were no GHE as a secondary confirmation of what we know from our premises, the data, and strict inference.)

Of course, I suppose it's also possible they were trying to demonstrate that the IPCC AR5 was worthless pseudo-science, as its conclusions didn't follow from its premises.

«Premise» is defined as (on - line dictionary): «A proposition upon which an argument is based or from which a conclusion is drawn.»

These, plus the conclusion that most of the warming since ~ 1950 was caused by AGW, constitute the IPCC «CAGW» hypothesis or premise, as it is known.

In its argument for the existence of CAGW, Working Group 1 employs the negated law as a false premise thusly arriving at the conclusion that CAGW is proved when it is not proved on account of the false premise.

The problem is that he and they forget what they have presupposed, thus their forgotten political premise appears as a conclusion of climate science.

A nice thing about the Bayesian approach is that it encourages discussion of our assumptions (i.e. the prior)-- the conclusion of even a correctly constructed logical argument is only as valid as its premises.

I know the public thinks this way (if they are inclined agree with the premise), but I think we should do a better job of educating the public that «new research shows...» should be interpreted as «more evidence has been collected to viewed in the light of what has already been learned and should be put in context by experts in the field before we determine, what conclusions might be drawn».

Through use of a false proposition as the premise to an argument one can appear to prove an arbitrarily chosen false conclusion.

Stated another way, if the audience accepts the major and minor premises as true, it must also accept the conclusion as true.

However, one could also argue that the tribunal's analysis honored the autonomy of EU law by coming to the only plausible conclusion on the question of competence, and the tribunal's dictum that the ECT does not protect investors from the implementation of EU law is equally respectful of the autonomy of EU law, as it is premised on the invariable primacy of EU law over the ECT.

[33] If the author of the report regards a factor as a major premise leading to the conclusion, then it should be so stated.

It is posited as a premise rather than a conclusion.

Findings that fathers «could» do this or that or become primary parents are distorted into recommendations based on other, unsupported and logically invalid conclusions from those premises, such as that both parents «are» or «should be» equal attachment figures to children.

In conclusion, support for this premise is as follows.