2 ms·
>This isn't even true Of course it is. This is one of those 'only on HN' moments. You absolutely can be cognizant that a fact may give rise to any number of co
by glenstein 3y ago
>This isn't even true
Of course it is. This is one of those 'only on HN' moments. You absolutely can be cognizant that a fact may give rise to any number of competing interpretations, and you can understand those interpretations to be significant if true, while not endorsing them.
>When someone believes a fact is important or "worth noting", they used some reasoning to arrive at that conclusion
Again, you can understand that a fact gives rise to certain interpretations without endorsing those interpretations, and this could nevertheless be enough of a reason to merit sharing the fact.
- SantalBlush 3y agoSo I think there may be some equivocation of the term "interpretation" in this thread--whether intentional or not--but I understand the point being made here. My point is that when one determines that a fact is notable, there is an underlying reason for making that determination, whether it involves several "competing interpretations" or not. It is perfectly reasonable to ask for that underlying reason so I can assess the validity of the statement. If someone refuses to give it, as we've seen here, then its reasonable to dismiss their assertion. I'm not responsible for justifying their own argument for them. As for the 'only on HN' remark, I think that was unnecessary. At any rate, this will be my last comment on the subject.