Sentences with phrase «than the argument from»

More than the argument from docility, it was this ritual cleansing on the altar that persuaded me, as if it had been a surface refreshment of the deeper mystery of the priest's consecrated hands.

Perhaps such assumptions are required by Friedersdorf's (mostly blue - state) audience, and perhaps such assumptions will be more effective than an argument from the Western tradition's account of human nature.

Not exact matches

While there's an argument to be made that AI is over-hyped as a technology, there's data to back up Sanwal's tongue - in - cheek advice: Mergers and acquisitions of AI startups increased by a factor of seven between 2011 and 2015, from five to more than 35 deals, according to the research firm.

«Any argument they make for keeping that in would result in the same kinds of legal challenges presented by Section 3 (c), which poses the question of, «Why have people from these countries been deemed more dangerous than others?»»

Testing hypotheses and trading arguments about theories often works better than planting a flag and asking team members to try to topple you from opinion mountain.

The judge declared that this was an argument of the «privileged» and said that Ulbricht was no different than a drug dealer from the Bronx.

Anyway, if you work in one of the few organizations that haven't yet been bitten by this egregiously awful management fad, here are 16 solid arguments why private offices, working from home, and even cubicles are better for business than these glorified hotel lobbies.

Compare a 4 % drop to the fact that unemployment grew across the country from around 4 % to almost 10 % in the same timeframe and you could make the argument that broker employment has actually held up better than that of most professions.

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.

Note we are reviewing these concerns from a slightly different argument than the active versus passive debate.

The argument from Gavin and other who supported increasing the transaction capacity by this method are essentially there are economies of scale in mining and that these economies have far bigger centralisation pressures than increased resource cost for a larger number of transactions (up to the new limit proposed).

Neal and Taylor's argument was rooted in math: there were more consumers than there were IT users, which meant that over the long run the rate of improvement in consumer technologies would exceed that of enterprise - focused ones; IT departments needed to grapple with increased demand from their users to use the same technology they used at home.

Still, it's not exactly a convincing argument; acquisitions also incur significant costs: the price of the acquired asset includes a premium that usually more than covers whatever cost savings might result, and there are significant additional costs that come from integrating two different companies.

While I'm not persuaded by the argument that Canada needs countercyclical Keynesian deficit spending (I think we're already out of recession), I do know what fiscal policy I would consider worse: arbitrarily cutting spending in a weak economy to balance the budget in light of a revenue shortfall stemming from lower than expected nominal GDP.

The most common argument you hear from the pass - through lobby (which includes, notably, lobbying firms themselves, who organize as partnerships) is that pass - throughs face a higher rate than C corporations.

Cuban's argument, though forward - looking, is that it would take less time for Amazon to deliver your groceries from a physical Whole Foods location — by drone, van, or whatever — than for you to take an autonomous car owned by a ride - hailing company to a physical store and back.

Perhaps P is true for another reason other than G. Additionally, you claims about life have purpose is fallacious, i.e. argument from incredulity or common sense.

Other than that, congratulations, that was the finest example of the logical fallacy known as an «Argument from Ignorance» that I have seen in a long time.

But from what I can gather, the Brits probably mopped the floor with the Americans — the former's bad arguments being less bad than the latter's.

Jeff's position makes much more sense than the Christians, and I don't see an argument from their position against his.

(Argument from Ignorance) Simply saying they don't exist is even less «proof» than I offered.

To that assessment this essay will contribute modestly by arguing (1) that an account of experience must be compatible with the fact that there is no one thing which is what experience is or is the essence of experience, (2) that no philosophically adequate account of what experience is can be established merely by appeal to direct, personal, intuitive experience of one's own experience, (3) that generalization from features found in human experience is not sufficient to justify the claim that temporality is essential to experience, but (4) that dialectical argument rather than intuition or generalization is necessary to support the claim that experience is essentially temporal.

johnny you need a better argument than the same ill - informed hogwash you have read or heard from «progressive thinkers.»

You do, of course realize that it is just as irrelevant, or more so than the Scriptures you disregard from the other side of the argument.

When the argument from creation to Creator had begun to lose convincing power, even before the rise of modern evolutionary thinking, Immanuel Kant proposed that we think of God in relation to our ethical experience rather than cosmology.

A highly valid argument coming from a socialist; but today it is gospel truth for a great many Christians, indeed for the best and most serious Christians — those who think of Christianity as something more than words and kind sentiments.

Chesterton's Autobiography is not always a reliable source; but there is corroborating evidence for these protective feelings from his childhood onwards: and since this evidence is virtually unknown, it is probably best here to take this opportunity to publish it for the first time (much of it will appear in my forthcoming book Chesterton and the Romance of Orthodoxy, though I discovered some of it too late for it to be included) rather than repeat old arguments.

Your position as the saver or spender will change issue to issue, but the point here is that each side is coming from a different foundation of financial values, and those core values feed the arguments over money rather than the money situation itself.

That's nothing more than proof - texting, and I'm used to more substantive, less knee - jerk arguments from you.

In ways even more relentless and entangled than at present, arguments about what we insist are «other» questions will be emerging from and returning to the question of abortion.

While it is true that very suggestive metaphysical arguments can be drawn from the reality of form, the intelligibility of the universe, consciousness, the laws of physics, or (most importantly) ontological contingency, the mere biological complexity of this or that organism can never amount to an irrefutable proof of anything other than the incalculable complexity of that organism's phylogenic antecedents.

Part of the answer is that these ancient events are moments in a living process which includes also the existence of the church at the present day; and another part is that, as Christians believe, in these events of ancient time God was at work among men, and it is from his action in history rather than from abstract arguments that we learn what God is like, and what are the principles on which he deals with men, now as always.

Compared with serious critiques from the past, much new atheism reads more like a tantrum than an argument.

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.»

We and the world in which we live would, in my opinion, be the better for it if we followed and did as Jesus taught, which so few do, rather than spend our hours and days in endless discussions and arguments defending what we suppose to be a group of perfect, from the mouth of God, writings.

I submit that arguments of this kind can have the force that Hartshorne takes them to have only if the whole of our knowledge of God, beyond our unavoidable experience of «the inclusive something,» can be derived from such knowledge as we have of ourselves, and hence is merely symbolic rather than truly analogical.

The notion that «the economy» is an actor in its own right, disembodied from «the change,» has led some analysts to float the strange argument that Republicans should have won more convincingly than they did.

He recognizes that he is addressing mainly the Catholic situation in the United States, and even that from his Irish - American perspective, but he believes that his core argument about the Catholic imagination and its cultural potency has wider application, and I expect he is right about that, although in this book it is asserted rather than demonstrated.

In addition to the argument from the wonders and the apparent intelligence of the world, and from the course of human history, past and future, as he believed it might he calculated, Second Isaiah had one other consideration which is presented with such brevity that there is danger of reading into it perhaps more than he meant.

Kant brought us back to the argument from conscience; we had the inner assurance of being at issue with the dictates of a Will, surely not less personal than our own.

Indeed, their full meaning is likely to become more apparent in the future than at the time of the book's first appearance, as thinkers from other world traditions engage its arguments.

They have no viable theory of their own other than «god did it»... an argument from ignorance.

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

That his concern is legitimate few will deny, and wholly apart from the theoretical issue noted above, this concern constitutes a strong practical argument for a liberal polity (which does no more than promote «some kind of equilibrium, necessarily unstable, between the different aspirations of different groups of human beings»).

We have more to gain from the rich explorations of individual deep ecologists than from their formal conceptual statements and arguments.

Guns are off - the - shelf ready to kill, and while people like to reason from the outlier cases (the self - defense argument), unless you're a bail bondsman or a police officer, you are more likely to have your own gun used on you than to actually have an opportunity to use it to defend yourself.

One may indeed be entirely without them; probably more than one of you here present is without them in any marked degree; but if you do have them, and have them at all strongly, the probability is that you can not help regarding them as genuine perceptions of truth, as revelations of a kind of reality which no adverse argument, however unanswerable by you in words, can expel from your belief.

He seems wholly unacquainted, for example, with any argument that might be advanced on behalf of the unborn other than one deriving from Roman Catholic or other religious doctrine, and he does not pause to examine even those.

While the Apostles were truly a less than desirable lot, between the arguments between themselves.The fact that they had Jesus there but never believed Him till He rose from the dead always gave me hope for my salvation knowing I was not a model of holiness that Jesus taught.

This is not an argument from design (in that case, it is not possible to find more than that what is given in nature itself); it is a true transcendental argument, looking for the conditions of possibility of those features that are truly exhibited by the world in which we live, and without which that world would not be conceivable.