wax argument造句

例句与造句

1. But the WP : WAX argument is invalid.
2. Descartes describes a piece of wax in the Second Meditation ( see Wax argument ).
3. To further demonstrate the limitations of these senses, Descartes proceeds with what is known as the " Wax Argument ".
4. Brining up other AfDs again and again is a WP : WAX argument, generally not considered valid reasoning . talk ) 21 : 52, 3 October 2008 ( UTC)
5. Descartes concluded famously that Cogito Ergo Sum, " I think, therefore I am ", but realized that according to his wax argument you could never similarly demonstrate the existence of the'other '.
6. It's difficult to find wax argument in a sentence. 用wax argument造句挺难的
7. Appears to be no issue with 181 ( part time ) Texas legislators having pages . ", but that's just an unpersuasive WP : WAX argument . talk ) 00 : 15, 27 August 2016 ( UTC)
8. Based on the evicence Kruse fails to meet either the relevant notability essay ( WP : SOLDIER ) or the WP : GNG . WP : WAX argument fails as Drevland meets guideline WP : POLITICIAN . Page temporarily restored for the discussion.
9. As far as the point that there are players with less experience, that's essentially a WP : WAX argument; and is as much as an argument that those articles should be deleted as it is that this article should be retained . talk ) 00 : 06, 7 November 2009 ( UTC)
10. Put differently, Descartes concluded " cogito ergo sum ", " I think, therefore I am, " that is, that the presence of a self of which to speak ( an " I " ) proves its existence to oneself; however, according to his Wax Argument, one could never similarly demonstrate the existence of the " other ."
11. Finally, as per nom, the WP : WAX argument doesn't hold ( let's give it the benefit of doubt even though black's has almost 500, 000 google hits compared to less than 3000 for dean's ); perhaps other law dictionaries should be under scrutiny too, but as of this AfD discussion, dean's dictionary is the one being reviewed . c ) 16 : 04, 7 September 2007 ( UTC)
12. And as for a WP : WAX argument, in reference to Wikipedia : Other stuff exists : Wikipedia : Other stuff exists can be a valid argument, as noted at that page, and it is certainly valid to state that " [ So and so source ] is generally accepted on Wikipedia, including for WP : BLPs, except for by a few editors trying to impose their personal view of acceptable sources on Wikipedia articles . " " People " magazine is cleared as a WP : Reliable source, after a very big and long WP : RfC discussion here at this noticeboard, so still trying to discourage use of that source is a waste of time.