Sentence examples for interpretation of the argument from inspiring English sources

This view, which claimed to draw from modern science, was a contemporary interpretation of the argument from design for the existence of God as set forth by the Anglican clergyman William Paley (1743 1805).

This interplay of criticism and defence characterizes the Orthodox interpretation of the argument.

Kant's version of the argument can be stated in different ways, but perhaps the following captures one plausible interpretation of the argument.

The problem with this interpretation of the argument in response to the dilemma argument is that it would not count as a version of access internalism.

His interpretation of the argument is that it moves from the claim that we cannot know what distinctions are ultimately real to the conclusion that no distinctions are real (262).

This reflects the point made at the end of 4.3 by the causal definition interpretation of the argument for mental anomalism: that rationality underlies, not mental anomalism, but rather mental realism.

In this section we look at different interpretations of the argument for this principle.

Considered as interpretations of the argument presented in the Proslogion, these formulations are subject to various kinds of criticisms.

We see once again a problematic consequence of interpretations of the argument for mental anomalism (Kim's and now Campbell's) that highlight a strong distinction between normative and descriptive principles.

The second arguments dimension "use of evidence " describes the students' use of observations or data in their interpretations of the argument from evidence from Karen or Mike, and the role of the observations or data in the students' reasoning.

The leading contemporary representative of the non-skeptical interpretation of this argument, Don Garrett (1997), maintains, on the contrary, that Hume, in these sections of the Treatise and the Enquiry, is only making the purely descriptive claim that "reasoning" cannot be the cause of our inductive inferences.