Quotes About Validity

Time is like opinions. If that makes sense to you, then it's true. Therefore, it is real based on your location.

When a postmodernist asserts that there is no universally valid truth, he is implicitly claiming that his own assertion is universally valid and true. To make the statement, he has to occupy the transcendental position that postmodernism says is not there to be occupied. Thus every time a postmodernist states his position, he contradicts it. The position is self-refuting.

the great statistician Frederick Mosteller had a point when he said, "It is easy to lie with statistics, but it is easier to lie without them." Nevertheless, there are some steps you can take to, as Huff put it, "talk back to a statistic." Among the biggies recommended by many scientists is to ask a simple question: Does the figure, finding, or correlation make sense, that is, accord with what you know of objective reality?

I consider 'Dr. Horrible' a tremendous success. The fact that it won an Emmy I just think lends validity to what we were doing and the point we were trying to make: taking the power into someone else's hands and changing the world.

One of the biggest problems with the world today is that we have large groups of people who will accept whatever they hear on the grapevine, just because it suits their worldview—not because it is actually true or because they have evidence to support it. The really striking thing is that it would not take much effort to establish validity in most of these cases… but people prefer reassurance to research.

There is some blogging jerk out there who feels he can generalize his way to validity.

I'm not some total invalid

It is not possible, says Weber, to confer the objective validity of facts on the basis of a value-judgement; and second, it is not possible to judge the value of values through the use of scientific reason. This leads him to maintain a distinction between science and ethics, the former dealing with questions of fact, the latter with questions of value.

authority is no guarantee of truth, if authority is not tested.

There's no greater insult in science than to say that an argument is 'not even wrong', that it is invulnerable to disproof.

Truths are not relative. What is relative are opinions about truth.

Some things are easier to legalize than to legitimate.

just because a test or measurement is reliable doesn't mean it's valid.

These days (as those few physicians who try actively to fight quackery have found to their sorrow), it is nearly impossible to deprive a doctor of his license to practice for anything so problematical as mere scientific heterodoxy. To fly by the seat of one's pants, espousing or devising nostrums as one chooses, without regard to scientific validity, is an open option. The stock of patients who can be recruited by the force of personality or the lure of hope is essentially limitless.

The weaker the data available upon which to base one's conclusion, the greater the precision which should be quoted in order to give the data authenticity.

In either case, Allah's mercy exists, though for non-Muslims unreached by the message, it is a question of divine amnesty for their ignorance, not a confirmation of their religions validity. It is worth knowing the difference between these two things, for one's eternal fate depends on it.

In a certain sense this was true, and truth is always true in a certain sense;

Look, Son of Anarchy, I appreciate the nice guy offer, but how do I even know you're legit?

Just because you believe it doesnt make it so.

If the Christian faith is true, it is true even if no one believes it, and if it is not true, it is false even if everyone believes it. The truth of the faith does not stand and fall with our defense of it.

The Christian faith is not true because it works. It works because it is true.

Your dream is always valid until you lose moral to chase it.

just because a point is well made, doesn't mean it's right.

Urgency is a tiebreaker only between two tasks of equal validity.