1) Someone chooses to argue the Earth is flat....
Does it change the
truth/validity of the claim to find out the why? Nope!
2) It's storming
outside, your window curtains are open, the rain is pouding against your
windows. Someone claims it's bright and sunny outside.
Does it matter to
the validity of the claim why they are making the claim? Nope!
3)
Someone states that it'll take the Federal Circuit some effort to override the
ruling of the Supreme Court. Does finding out why they made such a claim change
the reality that the Supreme Court overrules the Federal Circuit and not the
other way around? Nope!
The point being: you might be curious at what's
driving their decision to make such obviously wrong claims... but that doesn't
change the fact the claims are wrong. No amount of understanding their position
will alter the reality the claims are wrong.
You might think of the
examples outlined as being theoretical in nature. But 2 of the 3 examples
really have occurred.
So while understanding the why may sometimes be
important to examining the truth of the claims, sometimes you don't need to know
the why.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
| 
