A consistently intelligent (or at least bright), coherently constructed comedy that is on occasion
a rather pointed critique of the American education system in the early 21st century.
Not exact matches
rather, your fellow atheists are
pointing out, if you try to explain away religion by saying «evolution just programmed you to believe that», the same
critique can be equally invalidate your belief in evolution itself.
Thus, this paper is not an account of Whitehead's theory of perception solely in terms of the categories of the philosophy of organism;
rather, it is a
critique of the coherence of that theory from a
point of view outside it.
Before I pass any judgement I should
point out that I am extremely jealous of Leigh Whannell and James Wan, so anything critical I have to say may come from spite
rather than intellectual
critique.
What Meffe found to be too broad, Fleishman read as a «fairly personal
critique,» adding, ``... we aim for objective presentation of facts that may provide evidence contrary to a previous publication
rather than (what comes across as) a more
pointed rejoinder to authors and the journal.»
Perhaps you didn't notice, but below Indermühle, et al., 1999, on the same page in Science, was a written rebuttal by Wagner, et al., that
points out that Indermühle, et al., rested their
critique on stomata measurements from «altitudinally and latitudinally contrasting growth areas,» and on stomatal density measurements
rather than the more reliable normalized stomatal index.
[You miss the
point — I don't mind word play, I just dislike it when it is effectively an attack on the person who's argument you are disagreeing with (in this case Dave, hence the Bowman «wordplay»),
rather than a
critique of their argument's logic]
Might I suggest that the honourable scribe is «on
point» (not «pointe») as to his
critique of the LSUC» attempt toward a didactic
rather than a heuristic concept of being current as a professional.