Sentences with phrase «premises are false»

My point was because the premises are false, «buy and hold» strategy is not only NOT dead, but it's «the best, surest way of growing your assets.»

That is to say, several of its key premises are false, and its conclusion wouldn't follow even if they were true.

Your premises are false, and to think that the universe in some way cares about you because it is intelligent is farcical..

It turns out that this premise was false and that the hands free, far - field voice recognition is the killer app of smart speakers.

The intial premise is false — the solar system did not form by accidental collision.

There is much that could be said about this, but I will stick with one thing, based on discussion at about the 2 minute mark: When atheists insist that atheism does not drive behavior, and then then campaign on behalf of atheism, ridicule religion and religious believers in the name of atheism, seek to change laws in favor of their atheistic positions, recommend the extermination of religion, and practice falsehoods like Dawkins's in support of atheism, they prove that their atheism drives their behavior and that their premise is false, disingenuous, and (as far as I can tell) useless for anything but giving atheism rhetorical cover from being implicated in atheists» atrocities.

For example, maybe higher educated people have more personal security and as such feel less need for God... etc.... Either way your premise is false and illogical.

You said, «The point is that science has not shown Christian beliefs to be nonsense, so you premise is false.»

You didn't show any empirical evidence that any of my premises were false.

I'm voting to close this question as off - topic because the premise is false.

His premise is false.

@anonymous I didn't up or down - vote your question, I did vote to close, because the claim is not a true one, so the entire premise is false, which makes the question invalid.

This premise is false.

So your premise is false.

No you didn't, but you did state that selecting an average ECS for a basis of decision making is «fools gold from an engineering standpoint» which may well be true, but the premise is false — we do not use an average, we use a probabilistic range.

All we have to do is «believe,» even though common sense and even a casual look around the world today suggest that this premise is false.

Surprised because if the premise is a false one, as the letter indicates, then the argument you put forward falls down.

If so then I will start by noting that the climate appears to be a far - from - equilibrium system, hence Andy's basic premise is false.

Now we have to differentiate between those who believe strongly in the premise from those who believe strongly that the premise is false.

This premise is false, by the law of non-contradiction.

As the premise is false, this argument for CAGW is unproved.

Thus, when the uniform prior is used as a premise to an argument for CAGW, this premise is false, by the law of non-contradiction.

When that happens there will undoubtedly be attempts to refute it scientifically by presenting empirical data, which demonstrate that the premise is false.

Not exact matches

But chances are that whatever you believe is limiting the growth of your business (or anything else in your life) is based on a false premise, not an immutable truth.

Greenspan has long worked under a false premise so it's not surprising that the US economy has the structural flaws that it currently has.

This includes, but isn't limited to, sites that misrepresent or conceal their country of origin or are directed at users in another country under false premises.

For a start, the millennial brand is based on a false premise — namely, that humanity is circling the drain.

Over the short - term, unfortunately, there is no assurance that investors or analysts will quickly recognize that this market is trading on the basis of false premises about earnings and valuation (though my impression is that those who wake up based on reasoned argument and evidence will be better off than those who wake up based on investment losses).

But this is little better than a tautology with an empirically false premise.

The belief that manipulation is the be-all-and-end-all of the gold market is based on two false premises.

More analysis (below) that shows conservative narratives were driving pack journalism in Canadian media to attack Trudeau with false premises... again I'm no Trudeau fan, but the Canadian MSM reporting and editorials are largely being driven by conservative partisans.

The idea that central banks shouldn't surprise markets is based on a false premise, namely that market volatility should be avoided.

Warren Buffett has written that the distinction between «growth» and «value» is based on a false premise.

It is built on a false premise.

Yet if Feyerabend is correct, and an unpopular new theory can ignore or reject experimental data long enough to get its footing, how much longer can an old and creaky theory, buttressed by the reputations and influence and political power of hundreds of established practitioners, continue to hang in the air even when the results upon which it is premised are exposed as false?

What they do not mention is that once an entire field has been created — with careers, funding, appointments, and prestige all premised upon an experimental result which was utterly false due either to fraud or to plain bad luck — pointing this fact out is not likely to be very popular.

This is an increase in genetic information and your argument fails by a false initial premise.

Your question is based on a false premise.

Your god is not falsifiable, and it's there you're starting with a false premise.

yours is a false premise.

Martin, your belief is held in error because you're basing it on a false premise.

When I provide a postulate, it stands as fact unless one of the supporting premises is shown to be false — much like the way science works.

In a philiosophical debate, a postulate stands unless one or more of the supporting premises is shown to be false.

However, if a premise is faulty, it is the responsibility of the opponent to prove it false.

I'm not saying God is a false premise, no one can prove that in the general case.

The interesting thing about accepting the premise of supernatural being (s), is that you can apply perfect logic to a false premise and the conclusions will almost always be false.

As modern knowledge advances and hitherto insoluble problems are solved, a good deal of religion will be seen to be based on false premises, to be inadequate for modern conceptions of the universe, or to be little more than a collection of superstitious taboos.

False premise foul, (religion is the source of ethics and morality).

No, the premise that creationism is false (which is proven) is different from the notion that God does not exist or is «bad» for children.

But this is a false premise.