Sentences with phrase «than arguments based»

Climate science debates occur every day in the blogosphere and on cable news shows, but this particular fight about a major temperature record (and therefore, major news story) highlights the extent to which many boil down to mere contradiction and rejections of facts, rather than arguments based on competing lines of evidence.

These patients» individual stories, as told via the media or testimony on Capitol Hill, may be more compelling than arguments based on data and may thus contribute to the rising pressure to accelerate FDA approvals, according to bioethicist Bernard Lo, who is president of the Greenwall Foundation.

Truth is a teleological argument for the existence of a supreme intelligent entity is more valid than any argument based on random chance that I have ever heard.

I'd trust the math and take my chances with Amazon rather than an argument based on imputed expertise.

Not exact matches

It's a logical argument, even if Wolff doesn't consider that digital - only news organizations tend to have lower costs than their print - based cousins.

Make the argument as to why you're a fit based on what you learned in the interview rather than what it says in the job description.

And even some of the Snap bulls admit that their arguments are often based less on logic or fundamentals than on wishful ideas of a faraway day when Snap will be profitable.

Sanwal said he was surprised to find that most of the content being produced in his industry lacked any quantitative analysis; what he saw were primarily opinion pieces by experts trying to sell their arguments based on their industry reputations rather than any real data.

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).

This argument, which seems more ideological than empirical, is based on standard trade theory in which there is an implicit assumption that any intervention will drive trade performance away from its optimum, so that the United States always gains from the further opening up of its own market, even if trade partners don't reciprocate.

With more than a hint of exasperation, Scalia concludes: «One will search in vain the document we are supposed to be construing for text that provides the basis for the argument over these distinctions; and will find in our society's tradition regarding abortion no hint that the distinctions are constitutionally relevant, much less any indication how a constitutional argument about them ought to be resolved.

The most disingenuous aspect of creationism is that is alleges evidentiary problems with evolution (generally, nothing more than arguments of incredulity based in arguments of ignorance), but then invariably requires invocation of magic to patch up their «legitimate alternative.»

Rather than base his arguments on a detailed analysis of pertinent Scripture texts, he tended to quote St. Augustine (who predated Calvinism), John Calvin, and other prominent Calvinistic theologians.

In doing so, you are basing your argument upon appealing to the exception rather than the rule which makes for a weak argument in my opinion.

Though he verbally defended the old New England idea, it is interesting that he defended it more on the basis of reason and human rights than on the basis of Scripture, and this defense of congregational independence later provided arguments for advocates of the revolution against England.

Why not form an opinion totally based on how you «feel» or your «emotions» and justify your argument on why you feel that way, rather than saying «for the bible tells me so»... That's why we can't move forward on issues in this country; people feel they can't express themselves without the safety of a group's opinion... Let's listen to ourselves for once instead of having your daddy's politics and religion handed down to you like a family asset.

I would say that the fact that your watches and calendars are BASED on these calendars, would therefore mean that I could rip the floor out of ANY argument you make regarding this world to be more than 5773 years old.

I think your arguments are more based on presuppositions and biases rather than well thought out arguments.

Whitehead offers his abbreviated argument for a religious dogma based on a rational metaphysics rather than historical investigation.

Maybe more than ever, the students displayed the «competency» about being able to argue intelligently based on their own reading of Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau, and of being able to integrate particular arguments from the text in their own «comparative narratives.»

Peirce's argument against determinism in «The Doctrine of Necessity Examined,» published a year earlier than his paper on evolutionary love, clearly lays the basis for the affirmation of radical creativity and the need for the principle of agape (6.36 - 65).

It was this naive positivism that Kaplan accepted, rather than, for example, the much more sophisticated views of his philosophical mentor John Dewey, as the basis of his argument for religious naturalism.

This is presumptuous, says Origen, for it implies that the «truth of Christianity» is to be decided by a criterion external to itself; but, he continues, the «gospel has a proof which is peculiar to itself and which is more divine than a Greek proof based on dialectical arguments.»

No passage in the nine letters of Paul is more open to suspicion than this one, and it is precarious to base any argument upon it.

[1][2] It is a contemporary adaptation of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, presented by its advocates as «an evidence - based scientific theory about life's origins» rather than «a religious - based idea».

While the Nazi party and the various ethnic cleansings in Armenia, the Balkans, and Africa were not really based upon atheism (thus making his argument that atheism has killed more folks than organized religion a bit shaky), ALL of the instances he mentions are bona - fide examples of almost incomprehensibly large numbers of deaths, NONE of which can be blamed, even remotely, on «organized religion.»

His proposals regarding religion amount to assertions concocted on the basis of evolutionary hunches rather than conclusions proceeding from carefully constructed arguments.

«Calculations» about whether or not to kill an innocent person become no more than arguments of advocacy based on hypothetical scenarios of the future.

If the argument in favor of the correspondence of an entertained possibility of a state of affairs to an actual state of affairs is entirely based on coherence and consistency, we seem to be left with the question as to what more is affirmed, when we claim correspondence, than that this is the most coherent and consistent belief to hold?

Knowledge in the sense of direct first - hand encounter has so much higher standing than abstract argument based on logic that one could almost speak of anti-intellectualism in n - any groups.

But such responses based on attributing motives to the challenger (or questioning the intelligence, mocking, taunting, etc.) rather than evaluating the substance of the argument will always fail.

REASON AND SIENCE More than 2000 years old argument and belief of hindu Pharisee's, criminal self centered, hindu Jew's, criminal secular's, deniers of truth absolute, base of hinduism, corruption of truth absolute called religion's, such as Judaism, hindu Mithra ism, savior ism, labeled as Christianity, Suni ism, Shea ism.

There would be no courage and no glory in voting for a law based more on slogans than on arguments, in conforming to the dominant political correctness out of fear of the threatened anathema, and by counter-attacking as a last resort by a question such as: «Dven if there is no reason to pass a law, why is it a problem if we want to pass one?»

There would be no courage and no glory in voting for a law based more on slogans than on arguments, in conforming to the dominant political correctness out of fear of being anathematized, and in hiding behind a question such as: «Even if there is no reason to pass a law, why is it a problem if we want to pass one?»

That's why Helou chose the Australian Competition Tribunal route, based on national interest and national champion arguments, rather than sticking to a narrow definition of whether a local takeover might decrease domestic competition.

The point of my post was not to drag up the whole Hillary vs Trump argument (with all of the tribal narratives)... it was to say that there is a greater - than - zero percentage of Trump's base that are flat - out racists... and some of them may also 1) like the Eagels and 2) post on this blog.

Besides several teams who have questions surrounding one or possibly two players, there is no squad that has so many issues heading into the final week of the transfer window... even Monaco, who have lost numerous players from their starting 11 have less controversy swirling in and around their club and they have champion's league play to contend with this season... just think of how ridiculous this situation is especially considering that we have had the same manager for over 20 years... no team should be better organized than ours... if nothing else, that should be the one advantage this team holds over all others, yet the exact opposite has occurred... this fact is even more disturbing considering the main argument against removing Wenger from his managerial position was that there was no suitable replacement and that people feared some sort of perceived drop - off if a new manager was brought into the mix... based on what we've witnessed since the time of his contract renewal a monkey with a magic eight ball could have done an adequate job... I hate to make jokes, in light of our current dilemma, but this team is so screwed up if I don't laugh about it, the only plausible response is to either cry or do something incredibly destructive... just look around this squad and try to see what our delusional manager sees that allow him to make such positive statements about our current team

It's the basis of his whole argument that he's better than Maradona.

We're getting way off base into a semantics argument that is even more irrelevant to life than our actual conversation at hand (which is also still pretty irrelevant to life).

But the stats don't bear out that argument as overall Harrison's stats are better than or comparable to all of those players if you base the argument on all around game.

Of course, as soon as I point out that this argument also justifies drunk driving (even moreso, since it is a lot safer, on an absolute basis, than childbirth), they are long gone.

Then again, I find BOTH sides of this argument to be illigical idiots from the ground up, by somehow blythely assuming as axiom that the government owes ANYONE (straight or gay) different treatment based on nothing more than an agent of government having previously given them a paper statement that these two are now in a special relationship.

[11] Indeed, Cameron became a demagogue fronting the «Remain» campaign that was arguably based more on instilling fear of the catastrophic consequences of Brexit than on rational argument.

Dr Swift argued that, though there is no philosophical justification for valuing those closest to us more highly than others, in the case of the family there is an argument for a limited partiality on the basis of the goods that can only be provided by the familial environment.

According to her the videos and pictures that people are using as their justification does not make sense because she was so skinny and small than size 6, so people can not base their argument on her old pictures as their justification.

Democracy is hard to quantify, so I am trying an argument from authority and base my answers on the assessments of an organization which knows far more about politics and did far more research than me.

I'm going to sound all Henry Porter here, but it's not going to be long before we're all of us fair game on the basis that... well, you can find any excuse really to pry into someone's life under the arguments of «public interest» or «freedom of speech», and the principle extends further than the lives of celebrities right down to us at the bottom.

That election was particularly damaging to the SNP because so much of its rhetoric is based on the argument that Scotland is a fundamentally different, more socially - democratic nation than the rest of the UK.

The left's support for the EU relies on a variety of arguments, including an association with internationalism, a power - base to counteract US influence in foreign affairs, the source of more progressive penal and employment laws than in the UK and as a vehicle for ensuring peace in Europe.

The argument of «Labour bias» in the electoral system is based on arithmetic that shows that Labour receives on average fewer votes per MP than Lib Dems or Conservatives.