Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (235303)	5/4/2022 6:20:48 PM
From: bentway	1 Recommendation Recommended By rdkflorida2 Respond to of 361107

This was what Conway's statement was covering - the pictures are from the National Park Service:

To: i-node who wrote (235303)	5/4/2022 6:21:49 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 361107

the facts show one thing or the other, but interpretation is what humans do with facts. Hmmm. That is exactly what I was prepared to argue. You are taking interpretations and labeling them facts, then disparaging them because they are subject to interpretation. Similar to the idea behind a strawman, a fallacy that you also practice a lot. Of course facts are subject to interpretation. Perhaps that wasn't the best choice of words. My complete statement was: " A fact, by definition, is not subject to interpretation. It just is. If it weren't, it wouldn't be a fact."Yes, people use facts, the product of which is a conclusion or an interpretation . But the underlying fact remains the fact, unadulterated no matter what you do with or make out of it. If the conclusion stands up to testing over time, it may become a fact. Prior to that, not so much. We have come through a years-long argument over whether masks save lives. Any answer to that would be a conclusion.