While tweeting the other day, I came across this tweet from someone pretending to be a fictional character, but unlikely to be the person whom we identify as the fictional character, but it would be cool if it were:
Here's the thing: If you look, you'll be able to find at least one person who holds any viewpoint imaginable.—
Josiah Bartlet (@Pres_Bartlet) June 08, 2012
Later, in response to his later tweet, I wanted to look up the definition of the word, “valid:”
val·id [val-id] adjective
1. sound; just; well-founded: a valid reason.
2. producing the desired result; effective: a valid antidote for gloom.
3. having force, weight, or cogency; authoritative.
4. legally sound, effective, or binding; having legal force: a valid contract.
5. Logic . (of an argument) so constructed that if the premises are jointly asserted, the conclusion cannot be denied without contradiction.
So, in relation to the 5th definition, I replied with this tweet:
I believe that this is the fundamental problem between the prevailing views of the Right and Left: We disagree on the premises we can jointly assert, so it is impossible to reach a conclusion that cannot be denied without contradiction. We don’t agree on how to define the problem we want to solve, so we can’t expect to reach an agreed upon solution. We have facts on our side. The other side, through a judicious redefinition of the word “fact” claim the same thing about their views. Except that their “facts” tend to be based on a conviction that whatever certain people, or groups of people, assert is, by definition, non-factual. A vast majority of climate scientists (defined, as if it matters to them, as professional scientists working in the field of studying the Climate) tell us that the average temperature around our globe has been rising, and at a faster rate than it did historically, when humans weren’t around polluting the atmosphere. We believe them. Everything they say makes perfect sense, and who am I to argue? But the deniers say that this is nothing but a “hoax,” designed, apparently, to make us waste a lot of time and money (meaning “profits to corporations”) to fight a problem that doesn’t exist, and if it did exist, that there wouldn’t be any way to stop it, so we might as well try to find a way to make money off it. Okay, I probably made that last part up. but it sure makes a lot of sense, doesn’t it? So much so, that I think I’m going to decide it reaches my criteria to be called a fact. :)
This is our daily open thread — share your facts!