Instruct: Given a question, retrieve relevant passages that answer the question.
Query: What's a dissenting argument?
A dissenting opinion (or dissent) is an opinion in a legal case in certain legal systems written by one or more judges expressing disagreement with the majority opinion of the court which gives rise to its judgment. When not necessarily referring to a legal decision, this can also be referred to as a minority report.
Within Hegelianism, the word "dialectic" has the specialised meaning of a contradiction between ideas that serves as the determining factor in their relationship. Dialectic comprises three stages of development: first, a thesis or statement of an idea, which gives rise to a second step, a reaction or antithesis that contradicts or negates the thesis, and third, the synthesis, a statement through which the differences between the two points are resolved. Dialectical materialism, a theory or set of theories produced mainly by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, adapted the Hegelian dialectic into arguments regarding traditional materialism.
Pluralistic ignorance can be contrasted with the false consensus effect. In pluralistic ignorance, people privately disdain but publicly support a norm (or a belief), while the false consensus effect causes people to wrongly assume that most people think like they do, while in reality most people do not think like they do (and express the disagreement openly). For instance, pluralistic ignorance may lead a student to drink alcohol excessively because she believes that everyone else does that, while in reality everyone else also wishes they could avoid binge drinking, but no one expresses that due to the fear of being ostracized. A false consensus for the same situation would mean that the student believes that most other people do not enjoy excessive drinking, while in fact most other people do enjoy that and openly express their opinion about it.
Another argument against plea bargaining is that it may not actually reduce the costs of administering justice. For example, if a prosecutor has only a 25% chance of winning his case and sending the defendant away to prison for 10 years, he may make a plea agreement for a one-year sentence; but if plea bargaining is unavailable, he may drop the case completely.
Another argument against plea bargaining is that it may not actually reduce the costs of administering justice. For example, if a prosecutor has only a 25% chance of winning his case and sending the defendant away to prison for 10 years, he may make a plea agreement for a sentence of one year; but if plea bargaining is unavailable, a prosecutor may drop the case completely.
Conservative criticism has nothing much to do with "left-wing" or "right-wing", because left-wing people are often very conservative, in the defined sense, while right-wing people can also be very radical, in the defined sense. The difference between "radical" and "conservative" has more to do with the belief in whether "a change to something genuinely new" is really possible and necessary. Radicals typically believe strongly that such change is highly desirable and necessary, and that it can be achieved. Their criticism is that there is "not enough" change. Conservative critics, by contrast, are very skeptical about any such change, because they feel the change is really "just another form" of something that already exists.
Technically, however, he is only the leader for the time being of the Chief Opposition Party.18 There may be several parties in opposition, but the Opposition means the second main party temporarily in a minority, with leaders experienced in office, who are ready when the time arises, to form an alternative government. This affords a guarantee that its criticism will be directed by a consistent policy and conducted with responsibility-not in spirit calculated to ruin the game for the sake of the prize.
The primary aim of the dialogue is an attempt to define greed. A friend of Socrates argues that greed is a desire to profit from things of no value, but Socrates replies that no sensible man attempts to profit from worthless things, but inasfar as greed is a desire for profit, then it is a desire for the good, and thus everyone is greedy. The friend of Socrates thinks there is something wrong with Socrates' argument, but cannot say what is wrong with it.
Jonathan Swift worked for William Temple during the time of the controversy, and Swift's "A Tale of a Tub" (1703/1705) takes part in the debate. From its first publication, Swift added a short satire entitled "The Battle of the Books" to the "Tale of a Tub." In this piece, there is an epic battle fought in a library when various books come alive and attempt to settle the arguments between moderns and ancients. In Swift's satire, he skilfully manages to avoid saying which way victory fell. He portrays the manuscript as having been damaged in places, thus leaving the end of the battle up to the reader.
The doctrine of the univocity of being implies the denial of any real distinction between essence and existence. Aquinas had argued that in all finite being (i.e. all except God) the essence of a thing is distinct from its existence. Scotus rejected the distinction. Scotus argued that we cannot conceive of what it is to be something, without conceiving it as existing. We should not make any distinction between whether a thing exists ("si est") and what it is ("quid est"), for we never know whether something exists, unless we have some concept of what we know to exist.
The history of the debate from the critics' perspective is detailed by Gannon (2002). Critics of evolutionary psychology include the philosophers of science David Buller author of "Adapting Minds", Robert C. Richardson author of "Evolutionary Psychology as Maladapted Psychology", and Brendan Wallace, author of "Getting Darwin Wrong: Why Evolutionary Psychology Won't Work." Other critics include neurobiologists like Steven Rose who edited ""Alas, Poor Darwin: Arguments against Evolutionary Psychology"", and biological anthropologists like Jonathan Marks and social anthropologists like Tim Ingold and Marshall Sahlins.
Many contemporary scientists, such as Gassendi, dispute Galileo’s methodology for conceptualizing his law of falling bodies. Two of the main arguments are that his epistemology followed the example of Platonist thought or hypothetico-deductivist. It has now been considered to be "ex suppositione", or knowing the how and why effects from past events in order to determine the requirements for the production of similar effects in the future. Galileo methodology mirrored that of Aristotelian and Archimedean epistemology. Following a letter from Cardinal Bellarmine in 1615 Galileo distinguished his arguments and Copernicus' as natural suppositions as opposed to the “fictive” that are “introduced only for the sake of astronomical computations,” such as Plato's hypothesis on eccentrics and equants.
In recent years, this criticism of Scotus has become disseminated in particular through the writings of the 'Radical Orthodox' group of theologians, centred around John Milbank and Catherine Pickstock. The Radical Orthodox model has been questioned by Daniel Horan and Thomas Williams, both of whom claim that Scotus' doctrine of the univocity of being is a semantic, rather than an ontological theory. Both thinkers cite Ord. 1, d. 3, pars 1, q. 3, n. 163, in which Scotus claims that "This [univocally] is how all the authoritative passages one might find on this topic in the Metaphysics or Physics should be inter- preted: in terms of the ontological diversity of those things to which the concept is attributed, which is compatible with there being one concept that can be abstracted from them". Such a quotation seems to refer to epistemology, with abstracted concepts, rather than with ontology, which Scotus admits can be diverse.
Descartes refused to accept the authority of previous philosophers. He frequently set his views apart from those of his predecessors. In the opening section of the "Passions of the Soul", an early modern treatise on emotions, Descartes goes so far as to assert that he will write on this topic "as if no one had written on these matters before". His best known philosophical statement is "I think, therefore I am" (; ), found in "Discourse on the Method" (1637; written in French and Latin) and "Principles of Philosophy" (1644; written in Latin).
A phenomenon known as false consensus is closely related to the idea of pluralistic ignorance, and refers to the incorrect belief that others are similar, when in reality they are not. For example, heavy drinkers will think that most others consume as much as they do, and will use this belief to justify their behavior. Berkowitz, an independent consultant who works full-time to promote these ideas, describes false consensus and pluralistic ignorance as "mutually reinforcing and self-perpetuating...the majority is silent because it thinks it is a minority, and the minority is vocal because it believes that it represents the majority" (p. 194).
During his sojourn in Tübingen in 1536 Melanchthon was severely attacked by Cordatus, preacher in Niemeck, because he had taught that works are necessary for salvation. In the second edition of his "Loci" (1535), he abandoned his earlier strict doctrine of determinism which went even beyond that of Augustine of Hippo, and in its place taught more clearly his so-called Synergism. He repulsed the attack of Cordatus in a letter to Luther and his other colleagues by stating that he had never departed from their common teachings on this subject, and in the Antinomian Controversy of 1537 Melanchthon was in harmony with Luther.
In 2008 and 2009 some conservative commentators advanced claims that Obama's autobiography, "Dreams from My Father" was written or ghost-written by Ayers. In a series of articles in American Thinker and WorldNetDaily, author Jack Cashill claimed that his own analysis of the book showed Ayers' writing style. In late October, US Congressman Chris Cannon and his brother-in-law attempted to hire an Oxford University professor, Peter Millican, to prove Ayers' authorship using computer analysis. Millican refused after they would not assure him in advance that his results would be published regardless of the outcome. Millican later criticized the claim, saying variously that he had "found no evidence for Cashill's ghostwriting hypothesis," that it was "unlikely" and that he felt "totally confident that it is false." In his 2009 unauthorized biography "Barack and Michelle," author Christopher Andersen repeated Cashill's claim. When asked about the claims in 2009 Ayers said, as an apparent joke, that he wrote the book at Michelle Obama's request, setting off renewed coverage of the claims on conservative blogs.
His enemies, led by a young man named Meletus, accuse him in court, arguing that the philosopher preaches crazy doctrines to the youth, and does not believe in the gods, but demons. Socrates makes his "apology" (i.e., legal defense), but the citizens are against him; so Socrates is sentenced to death, and held in prison, awaiting execution. His disciples are desperate, and one of them, Crito, tries to help him by encouraging him to flee. Socrates rejects this idea, saying he must obey the rulers of the city. Socrates then resolves to die, and dies as soon as he is forced to drink hemlock.
The dialogue takes place in Socrates' prison cell, where he awaits execution. He is visited before dawn by his old friend Crito, who has made arrangements to smuggle Socrates out of prison to the safety of exile. Socrates seems quite willing to await his imminent execution, and so Crito presents as many arguments as he can in order to persuade Socrates to escape. On a practical level, Socrates' death will reflect badly on his friends--people will think they did nothing to try to save him. Also, Socrates should not worry about the risk or the financial cost to his friends; these they are willing to pay, and they have also arranged to find Socrates a pleasant life in exile. On a more ethical level, Crito presents two more pressing arguments: first, if he stayed, he would be aiding his enemies in wronging him unjustly, and would thus be acting unjustly himself; and second, that he would be abandoning his sons and leaving them without a father.
Socrates addresses Clitophon and confronts him on the rumor of Clitophon censuring spending time with Socrates while praising time with Thrasymachus (406a1-a4). Clitophon claims that he heard incorrectly and that while he did not praise some things of Socrates, he did praise others (406a5-a7). Socrates agrees to listen to Clitophon's side so that he might learn how to better himself by allowing himself be subject to Clitophon's criticism (407a1-a5).
Critics have had diverse opinions on the novel. John Ruskin declared "Hard Times" to be his favourite Dickens work due to its exploration of important social questions. However, Thomas Macaulay branded it "sullen socialism", on the grounds that Dickens did not fully comprehend the politics of the time. George Bernard Shaw argued "Hard Times" to be a novel of "passionate revolt against the whole industrial order of the modern world." But he criticised the novel for failing to provide an accurate account of trade unionism of the time, arguing that Slackbridge, the poisonous orator, was "a mere figment of middle-class imagination." Believing that it was very different from Dickens's other novels, Shaw also said: "Many readers find the change disappointing. Others find Dickens worth reading almost for the first time."
A justice voting with the majority may write a concurring opinion; this is an opinion where the justice agrees with the majority holding itself, but where he or she wishes to express views on the legal elements of the case that are not encompassed in the majority opinion. Justices who do not agree with the decision made by the majority may also submit dissenting opinions, which may give alternative legal viewpoints. Dissenting opinions carry no legal weight or precedent, but they can set the argument for future cases. John Marshall Harlan's dissent in "Plessy v. Ferguson" set down for the majority opinion later in "Brown v. Board of Education".
Ǝ ǝ or Turned E is an additional letter of the Latin alphabet used in African languages using the Pan-Nigerian alphabet or the African reference alphabet. The minuscule is based on a rotated e and the capital form majuscule Ǝ, based on a rotated majuscule E.
The major section comprises a series of arguments for why the Dissenters should be treated favourably ("They are very numerous", "That this is a time of war"). The speaker denounces each in turn and offers several counter-arguments, each gradually escalating in their severity. A vision is given of what will happen to the Church of England if it is not defended against the Dissenters. The pamphlet ends with a rallying call to action against the Dissenters in defence of the church ("Now let us Crutcifie the Thieves.")
The enzyme belongs to the group of oxidoreductases according to the EC classification and is dependent on FAD as cofactor, thus it was classified as an external flavoprotein monooxygenase (designated as type E). It forms a two-component system with a reductase (StyB, StyA2B). The reductase utilizes solely NADH to reduce the FAD, which is then transferred to the styrene monooxygenase (StyA, StyA1). Two types of that enzyme are described so far: StyA/StyB (designated E1), first described from "Pseudomonas" species, and StyA1/StyA2B (designated E2), first described from Actinobacteria. The E1-type is more abundant in nature and comprises a single monooxygenase (StyA) supported by a single reductase (StyB), whereas the E2-type has a major monooxygenase (StyA1) which is supported by fusion protein of a monooxygenase and reductase (StyA2B). The latter one is the source of reduced FAD for the monooxygenase subunits and has some side activity as a monooxygenase. So far all styrene monooxygenases perform enantioselective epoxidations of styrene and chemically analogous compounds, which makes them interesting for biotechnological applications.