On the surface this seems reasonable, or at least plausible, but a hard look at the question of litigation-generated science makes some of the easy distinctions problematic.
But this distinction is problematic: saying what parts of our speech are fictional and which are literal is, Yablo argues, at least as problematic as saying which sentences are synthetic and which are analytic.
Setting aside the problems just identified, Leibowitz's distinction remains problematic in the context of his overall system.
This case also creates problems for the idea that killing is worse than letting die, since the fact that Hans was waiting in the wings in no way diminishes Franz's wrongdoing in this case.[10] So, this way of drawing the distinction is problematic, and this argument for the moral significance of the distinction is flawed.
However, such a distinction was problematic, both theoretically and in practice, particularly given that medical research regulation was law-based while regulation of other research was voluntary.
They themselves, however, used gender-based distinctions to problematic male nursing.
However, where linear superposition is lost such distinctions become problematic (Bishop 2010a).
That distinction is extremely problematic for the purposes of establishing Anomalous Monism, and is set aside here in favor of the related (but by no means identical) distinction between strict and ceteris paribus generalizations.
Indeed, craft objects themselves such as quilts are now occasionally the subject of exhibits in fine-art museums, another recognition that the problematic distinction between fine art and craft dissolves with changing cultural assessments.
There is also a problematic distinction between the so-called "philosophical" Daoism (Dao jia 道家) of the Daode jing, Zhuangzi, and Huainanzi and the so-called "religious" Daoism (Dao jiao 道教) of longevity practices, popular religion, and organized Daoist churches.
