Sentences with phrase «without valid arguments»

Not exact matches

Its also the people who think they can simply turn around any argument aimed at their group, as if that were valid without actual evidence.

Although these arguments are valid, the answer seems to be incomplete without mentioning that ISIS fights against Hezbollah, which is highly profitable for Israel.

Without going into the technicalities or the merits of the proposal for a new voters» register, advocates for the new electoral roll have put forward their arguments be they valid or not.

Euclid made repeated use of axioms that he had not stated, without which his arguments are not logically valid.

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»

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.