Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSimilar(60)
His argument can be understood as follows.
These considerations suggest that one aspect of the debate between naturalists and non-naturalists is best understood as a debate about whether knowledge and justification can be understood in naturalistically acceptable causal and reliabilist terms or must be understood in terms of naturalistically suspect evaluative terms.
Similarly, one longstanding controversy that divides realists and antirealists in the philosophy of science can be understood as a debate about whether the kind of evidence which is available to scientists is ever sufficient to justify belief in theories that quantify over entities that are in principle unobservable, such as electrons or quarks.
As we pointed out in the introduction, debates concerning the moral acceptability of deception in medicine can be understood to represent a conflict between the principle of respect for autonomy and the principle of beneficence.
The extent to which informal arguments can be understood as deductive arguments has, therefore, been a source of significant debate within informal logic.
This process can be understood as follows.
Well, this can be understood, and is.
These trends can be understood as follows.
These results can be understood intuitively.
This debate can only be understood if one can contrast the characteristics of these proposed alternative logics with the characteristics of the simplest modal logic.
The debate can be heated.
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com