I don't get why she got beat up for that. Well, I do because they are dishonest, but what's wrong with having a different set of facts that you bring to the table to back up an argument?
It's almost like they want to shut down conversation, or something?
What I'm poking at is - correct me if I'm wrong - but part of the definition of "fact" is that it is actually true. It is certainly possible to argue different opinions with different sets of non-contradictory facts, e.g. whether a launch vehicle stage should use hydrogen because it has high specific impulse or kerosene because of hydrogen's low density - hydrogen's low density and high specific impulse don't contradict; it's not rocket science ...sorry for the interruption, but a small hard object just hit my head for some reason. But if someone is going to say hydrogen has an atomic number of 1 and someone says it has an atomic number of 2, only one of those is true, and therefore only one of those is a fact, and the other is not an "alternative fact".
What is a fact? Is a theory a fact? Is a law a fact? Is a probable outcome a fact? Is common sense factual? Is something that is a fact only something that can be proved? The truth is we have very few true facts but rather lots of empirical and anecdotal data. It's not like we can look at the code of the universe and confirm even elemental things like the gravitational constant. We can only measure it repeatedly but even then our precision is limited
You're picking apart the word "fact" when you should be looking at the word "alternative". Alternative doesn't mean opposite or untrue. Her point was that you can pick different facts to look at instead only cherry-picked ones that fit your narrative.
I don't know why this is so hard for people to understand. I'm pretty sure a 5th grader can grasp what alternative means.
This is one of the most idiotic comments I've ever seen. Have you read the thread, or even the comment you're replying to?
a) the idiotic:
Alternative doesn't mean opposite or untrue. Her point was that you can pick different facts to look at instead only cherry-picked ones that fit your narrative.
You haven't read
It is certainly possible to argue different opinions with different sets of non-contradictory facts
in the comment you're responding to.
b) the dumb:
This is from the original u/SneakPeak comment that I was referring to:
They've completely brainwashed her with their alternative facts.
She (matching your pronoun on the assumption that we're talking about the same user and you don't mean covfefe-time) seems to be talking about lies, or at least errors, given to Kellyanne Conway's daughter, rather than what are actually alternative facts.
I don't get why she got beat up for that. Well, I do because they are dishonest, but what's wrong with having a different set of facts that you bring to the table to back up an argument?
It's almost like they want to shut down conversation, or something?
What I'm poking at is - correct me if I'm wrong - but part of the definition of "fact" is that it is actually true. It is certainly possible to argue different opinions with different sets of non-contradictory facts, e.g. whether a launch vehicle stage should use hydrogen because it has high specific impulse or kerosene because of hydrogen's low density - hydrogen's low density and high specific impulse don't contradict; it's not rocket science ...sorry for the interruption, but a small hard object just hit my head for some reason. But if someone is going to say hydrogen has an atomic number of 1 and someone says it has an atomic number of 2, only one of those is true, and therefore only one of those is a fact, and the other is not an "alternative fact".
What is a fact? Is a theory a fact? Is a law a fact? Is a probable outcome a fact? Is common sense factual? Is something that is a fact only something that can be proved? The truth is we have very few true facts but rather lots of empirical and anecdotal data. It's not like we can look at the code of the universe and confirm even elemental things like the gravitational constant. We can only measure it repeatedly but even then our precision is limited
You're picking apart the word "fact" when you should be looking at the word "alternative". Alternative doesn't mean opposite or untrue. Her point was that you can pick different facts to look at instead only cherry-picked ones that fit your narrative.
I don't know why this is so hard for people to understand. I'm pretty sure a 5th grader can grasp what alternative means.
This is one of the most idiotic comments I've ever seen. Have you read the thread, or even the comment you're replying to?
a) the idiotic:
You haven't read
in the comment you're responding to.
b) the dumb:
This is from the original u/SneakPeak comment that I was referring to:
She (matching your pronoun on the assumption that we're talking about the same user and you don't mean covfefe-time) seems to be talking about lies, or at least errors, given to Kellyanne Conway's daughter, rather than what are actually alternative facts.