Another day, another inaccurate description of the Rehberg-SCHIP affair.
Jay links to a timeline over at Kos (I will not link to that site, ever) stating Rehberg wrote his op-ed on August 10, 2007. Not really a huge issue other than the editorial was published August 3rd in Billings, and is dated August 1 on his website. This of course means Rehberg wrote the op-ed concurrently with his vote, not afterwards.
Not that I expect Kossacks to have an understanding of the Eastern Montana mentality, but the author misses by a wide margin about what happened in Sidney. From my own experiences, and what was published, the lady at the meeting was mad at Denny for opposing the President on SCHIP. Kinda goes against the whole rubber stamp meme doesn’t it?
Posted in Blogging, Denny Rehberg | | Write a Letter to the Editor
You guys over here seem to have an infatuation with Rehberg; well over 50% of the serious posts here center around him.
That’s a little odd. Of course, you and Cody will probably say that is because the ‘Sinestra’ are picking on our Representative, but (as Cody and I discussed) there are certainly more than one conclusion people can draw from the facts.
I think your sample may be shaded by the recent focus on one specific issue - the SCHIP question with Rehberg.
We had discussed this before Colby, but I think I finally figured out what the problem I was sensing was with your advocacy for different conclusions utilizing the same facts. It violates Occam’s Razor. This principle, often misstated as “the simplest answer is the correct answer” actually has to do with the relevant matter of drawing conclusions from data.
The basic premise of Occam’s Razor is that conclusions should go no further than what the data support. Every degree of complexity that is added to the simplest conclusion that explains the data is making assumptions with no basis in evidence.
In this case, the only tangible evidence indicates that Rehberg supports SCHIP as much as Baucus. Any assumption of “secret political motives” or “underhanded doublespeak” is conjecture without warrant or backing.
So, yes, you can draw your own conclusions with the same facts, but those conclusions are inherently weaker by virtue of the fact that they extend beyond the limit of what the evidence shows.
As a philosophical point of study, Occam’s Razor is great, but many people smarter than Ockham have used that kind of logic as a smokescreen for nefarious purposes. Plenty of people have been framed and blackmailed because the “facts” pointed to them.
If you don’t mind getting philosophical, Aristotle - the inventor of the modern scientific method - believed that rhetorical discourse could accurately portray truth in the hands of competent interlocutors because ultimately facts - if well laid out - would support reality.
Assuming, then, that you are a competent advocate, you should be able to point to evidence that supports the position you forward - a position that runs contrary to the evidence I have offered.
There has to be some standard for what works as a warrant in a debate. Some guideline by which we can judge the merit of a claim. Without such a standard - merely accepting the unsupported assertions as reality - there can be no worthwhile discussion. In such an environment the claim “I have a feeling Brian Schweitzer eats kittens,” or “Earth is flat” would be unassailable facts with no way to counter.
So again, I beg you. Produce the evidence that supports your claim that contrary to his statements, and contrary to his voting record Rehberg actually opposes SCHIP.
Colby, I am no philosopher so I will stay out of the debate on Aristotelian logic - I was always more intrigued by Platonic Realism anyway. However, my attention has been turned to the whole Jay Stevens/SCHIP/Rehberg thing, so when he posts on it I take notice and comment. It really is that simple.
