Sentences with phrase «reject facts and evidence»

Not exact matches

Not as amazing as how bible - thumpers reject and ignore all facts and evidence put in front of their eyes

Copernicus gave preference to man's delight in abstract theory, at the price of rejecting the evidence of our senses, which presents us with the irrefutable fact of the sun, the moon and the stars rising daily in the east to travel across the sky towards their setting in the west.

«Atheist» is way to specific to describe rational people (that reject delusional beliefs of any kind and believe in reason and logic, using tools such as evidence, facts, and probability), as disbelief in god is really just a tiny aspect of being normal, rational human being.

In fact, all my anxieties run in the opposite direction: that, in order to affirm the uniqueness of humanity within organic nature, as well as the unique moral obligations it entails, we will reject all evidence of intentionality, reason, or affection in animals as something only apparently purposive, doing so by reference to the most egregiously vapid of philosophical naturalism's mystifications — «instinct» — and thereby opening the way to a mechanistic narrative that, as we have learned from an incessant torrent of biological and bioethical theory in recent decades, can be extended to human behavior as well.

And I am sure that as the facts become clear and widely available, and as the people come to terms with the evidence, they will reject the falsehood and deliberate attempts to destabilize our peaceful countAnd I am sure that as the facts become clear and widely available, and as the people come to terms with the evidence, they will reject the falsehood and deliberate attempts to destabilize our peaceful countand widely available, and as the people come to terms with the evidence, they will reject the falsehood and deliberate attempts to destabilize our peaceful countand as the people come to terms with the evidence, they will reject the falsehood and deliberate attempts to destabilize our peaceful countand deliberate attempts to destabilize our peaceful country.

The FACT (I'll call it a fact since Hachette didn't deny it) that Hachette waited so long to respond to Amazon initially AND continues to drag their feet — while the authors (whom they claim are the victims of Amazon) suffer — and the FACT that they have now rejected TWO offers to compensate those same authors with the intention (evidenced by their own comments) of getting to the first legal opportunity to attempt to negotiate Agency pricing back — isn't just a smoking FACT (I'll call it a fact since Hachette didn't deny it) that Hachette waited so long to respond to Amazon initially AND continues to drag their feet — while the authors (whom they claim are the victims of Amazon) suffer — and the FACT that they have now rejected TWO offers to compensate those same authors with the intention (evidenced by their own comments) of getting to the first legal opportunity to attempt to negotiate Agency pricing back — isn't just a smoking fact since Hachette didn't deny it) that Hachette waited so long to respond to Amazon initially AND continues to drag their feet — while the authors (whom they claim are the victims of Amazon) suffer — and the FACT that they have now rejected TWO offers to compensate those same authors with the intention (evidenced by their own comments) of getting to the first legal opportunity to attempt to negotiate Agency pricing back — isn't just a smoking gAND continues to drag their feet — while the authors (whom they claim are the victims of Amazon) suffer — and the FACT that they have now rejected TWO offers to compensate those same authors with the intention (evidenced by their own comments) of getting to the first legal opportunity to attempt to negotiate Agency pricing back — isn't just a smoking gand the FACT that they have now rejected TWO offers to compensate those same authors with the intention (evidenced by their own comments) of getting to the first legal opportunity to attempt to negotiate Agency pricing back — isn't just a smoking FACT that they have now rejected TWO offers to compensate those same authors with the intention (evidenced by their own comments) of getting to the first legal opportunity to attempt to negotiate Agency pricing back — isn't just a smoking gun.

By all appearances, you are in denial in the psychological sense, «in which a person is faced with a fact that is too uncomfortable to accept and rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence.»

The fact that I do not know a single scientist who rejects the idea of AGW, despite differences I have with them on a multitude of other issues, is an indication of the power of the scientific arguments supporting it, and the commitments of scientists generally to following the evidence.

An industry of denial, abetted by news media and «info - tainment» broadcasters more interested in selling controversy than presenting facts, has duped half the American public into rejecting the facts of climate science — an overwhelming body of rigorously vetted scientific evidence showing that human - caused, carbon - based emissions are linked to warming the Earth.

[56] The court also quoted the view in Perry that a committee «must not and can not decide disputed issues of fact in relation to the substantive allegations,» and «must also be extremely cautious about rejecting or discounting evidence on the basis that it is incredible or implausible.»

The majority of the court has rejected defendant's sentencing arguments that the sentence was unreasonable because there was insufficient evidence to convict him and, separately, that the fact of the sentence disparity between defendant and Lugo itself establishes that the sentence is unreasonable.

The Union, however, rejected the evidence presented as being «unparticularized and unrefined» and took significant issue with the fact that the evidence did not distinguish between contractors, union and non-union workers.

Teare J also rejected arguments that the respondent had submitted to the jurisdiction of the English court through its conduct and found the evidence inconclusive as to whether the London office of the UAE bank in fact represented a place of business for the UAE bank.

In reaching this conclusion, Justice Morgan cited some of the evidence provided by non-expert witnesses, including the fact that the Defendant had recommended a particular box manufacturer which was rejected by the Plaintiff because the Plaintiff wanted to purchase the boxes from a cheaper source, and also that the Plaintiff acknowledged that smaller boxes would have been more suitable, but elected to go with larger boxes because they looked better.

However, the fact that the police were tipped off by a vigilante who has broken the law and is not present to face court may cause the jury to reject the evidence as unreliable (ie.

When applicable rules allow enhancement based on any and all jury - rejected «facts,» prosecutors can brazenly charge any and all offenses for which there is a sliver of evidence, and pursue those charges throughout trial without fear of any consequences when seeking later to make out their case to a sentencing judge.

The court rejected this argument, citing evidence that the Board's procedural review tribunal had considered this and rejected the argument because the Listing Broker actually served on the Board's Professional Standards Committee, and that fact did not need to be disclosed to the other party.