Sentences with phrase «valid argument about»

How did someone who claims a general school education not learn the difference between an unscientific, invalid personal attack and a valid argument about the substance of the matter?

btw i agree with you on your valid argument about the errors in «the Order 1886».

«Historically, opinion on the appeal to authority has been divided — it has been held to be a valid argument about as often as it has been considered an outright fallacy.»

U guy giving valid arguments about other ps devices but that has nothing to do with his statement.

Not exact matches

After about a year or so of his loud and passionate arguing many of us would just avoid him as we did not feel that the arguments were valid nor important enough to listen to.

Why is it a valid argument to say that He «always existed», but an invalid argument to say the same thing about matter and energy?

To go along with this, you have to believe three things, all controversial: (1) that authenticity is a valid idea; (2) that you can argue in reason about ideals and about the conformity of practices to these ideals; and (3) that these arguments can make a difference.

Thus Martin concludes, for example, that N. T. Wright's approach to Jesus, which mixes supernaturalism and ordinary biography, is just as historically valid as Sanders's method, which does not deal with miracles or the resurrection — although, paradoxically Martin finds Wright's arguments about the resurrection very unconvincing.

Arguments about no proof of any spiritual matters are another story entirely and for the life of me I don't know why the valid arguments are ignored over the invaArguments about no proof of any spiritual matters are another story entirely and for the life of me I don't know why the valid arguments are ignored over the invaarguments are ignored over the invalid ones.

(that's a valid argument to make) Did you have concerns about their methodologies?

The arguments presented by the creation institute in this regard are valid but they never went about proving their claim.

«Lewis wrote in a time when, among the educated British public if not among their professional philosophers, there was considerably more agreement than there is now about what constitutes a valid and rational argument for a given case.»

Tom Tom makes too many as sumptions about others.No wonder it can't make a valid argument and why does it have to think that it is only one that lives in a good neighborhood and that everyone else lives in a trailor?

Keynes's argument as to why these two assumptions are required for «valid inductive inference» is crucial for resolving the conflict about the role of the doctrine of internal relations.

If you had a valid argument you wouldn't need to lie about it.

Even if you want to lay to one side the very valid concerns about the porn industry's links with human trafficking, or the connections between hard - core pornography use and sexual violence, there's a strong argument that this is, in fact, a public health issue.

I do believe that Gazidis was weak and done very little to convince Silent Stan that the issues was the managers fault, Wenger has been able to turn around and point to poor transfer activity from the board to result in a poor team for him to manage, for someone who isn't deeply understanding about football then Wengers arguments could sound equally valid.

However, the idea that if society needs to bring resources to bear it is somehow not a fundamental human right is an argument that seems to make assumptions about being somehow valid more than any demonstration of validity having been made.

Although they agreed that it would allow them to make valid inferences about students» ability to construct grammatically correct sentences, they determined that it did not provide enough information to allow them to assess student progress in developing compelling arguments.

While there are valid arguments at this time as to whether one should rent or own their primary residence given the absurd amount of debt most are carrying on their principal residence along with artificially cheap money and the boomer influx about to hit the real estate markets across Canada over the next few years it would seem you are okay in that area.

Eric makes some valid points about his «Puppies are dicks» argument.

Animal Hoarding Dauphiné and Cooper's argument presupposes that enough is known both about «people involved in TNR» and «the psychiatric disorders described in problematic animal hoarding» for a valid comparison to be made.

The biggest takeaway that I hope people get from this blog post is that they are not alone in their concerns about medication use, but that there are extremely valid arguments in favor of it.

This also circles back to my recent point about the valid part, and flawed part, of Julian Simon's old «doomslayer» argument that population fears are unnecessary because more brains = more progress (see «The Ultimate Resource «-RRB-.

That argument is valid in a sense but it is even worse than that — even a small quantity of people don't do anything about it — you are still screwed.

Could McIntyre respond, perhaps by saying whether this is a red herring argument about the validity of the temperature hockey stick, or whether caerbannog actually has a valid point?

We are facing the same problem here as we are elsewhere when the consequences of CO2 releases are considered: There are valid arguments that tell about possible serious consequences, but the uncertainties are large.

I realize it's kind of late for making suggestions, but here goes anyway: Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner claim to have falsified the existence of an atmospheric greenhouse effect.It looks like you have addressed T&G's main arguments (eg, about the 2nd law), but I wonder if it might be appropriate to put in a brief description of what it means to «falsify» something in the scientific sense — ie, essentially what T&G must show (and failed to show) to make their case that there is no greenhouse effect: namely, 1) experimental evidence that shows the opposite of what an atmospheric greenhouse effect would necessarily produce and / or 2) evidence that the greenhouse effect would actually violate some physical law (eg, 2nd law of thermo) The pot on the stove example is obviously an attempt to show that you get a colder temp with the water than without, but I think it's worthwhile explicitly stating that «because T&G failed to demonstrate that the pot on the stove example is a valid analogy for the earth, they failed to falsify the atmospheric greenhouse effect» And you could also add a sentence stating that «because T&G failed to show that the greenhouse effect would require a violation of the 2nd law [because their arguments were incorrect], they also failed to falsify»

As such, arguments about the magnitude of those expected anomalous increases also seem valid.

I think arguments about the estimated range of the magnitude of sensitivity are valid.

Maybe there is a valid reason for you to advocate because of your concern about a lack of balance, but: (1), I question the criteria you are using to measure that imbalance, and (2) as you become an advocate, you drift away from the science, and you drift away from the first order priority of presenting as much information as is reasonable, objectively, before laying out the argument for your conclusions.

You make this argument (which is hopefully fairly obviously not even logically valid, let alone unsupported by any actual physics), and attempt to «support» it by means of waving your hands about how gravity has to do work and the work has to turn into heat without considering what happens to all that heat when gravity stops doing work because the atmosphere achieves a static force profile such that.

A nice thing about the Bayesian approach is that it encourages discussion of our assumptions (i.e. the prior)-- the conclusion of even a correctly constructed logical argument is only as valid as its premises.

Both sides — and even a Confusionist must admit to exactly two sides on this love triangle — have victim arguments, and both sides absolutely have some valid points about potential victims.

No answer there, until VTG's partial answer (I'm now not sure it was an answer because of the reference to the paper Judith co-authored, and as has been pointed out, that paper may just be an argument based on certain assumptions that would make my question inapplicable, although the question as to whether Judith's assertion about CO2 / ACO2 «dominance» is in contradiction to Lewis» range of sensitivity may still be a valid question, I think).

I find a serious fracture in your «science» argument, namely, you keep talking about the Mann Hockey Stick graph as if it valid for determining temperature during the Medieval Warm Period.

Why is that a valid argument to delay progress (such as educating the population about the truth)?

I just worry about the greater state of science when we allow them to keep the argument confined to the realm of statistics and don't hold any assertions either way to the standards that the many valid and accepted theories in science meet.

Of course, it is interesting that many of those same «skeptics» also make contradictory arguments that suggest that they have great certainty about the magnitude of the effect (that it definitely isn't as large as the range estimated by the IPCC), and / or argue that none of the ways that climate scientists have measured the effect are valid.

I leave it to objective readers here to determine whether the blogger's claim is valid and whether whatever point I made about «losing an argument» was valid or not.

But approaching the question of discernable temperature anomalies and trends and correlations with human behaviour with curve fitting... and then to bog down in arguments about whether it is statistically valid to do so... does take the eye off physics arguments and is just sooo missing the point.

Statistically speaking, there is no better preparation for success in law than an undergraduate degree spent thinking about the nature of knowledge, the meaning of being and, especially, what makes a valid argument.

This concern about «large - scale,» accidental killing is valid, but the same practical argument applies to civilian casualties and not just military ones.

«Staff splitting,» as mentioned earlier, is a much - discussed phenomenon in which professionals treating borderline patients begin arguing and fighting about a patient, the treatment plan, or the behavior of the other professionals with the patient... arguments among staff members and differences in points of view, traditionally associated with staff splitting, are seen as failures in synthesis and interpersonal process among the staff rather than as a patient's problem... Therapist disagreements over a patient are treated as potentially equally valid poles of a dialectic.