By now, we’re all familiar with Trump Adviser KellyAnne Conway’s remark about “alternate facts.” If not, a brief summary:
The outrage over â€œalternative factsâ€ began Sunday, when Conway appeared on â€œMeet the Pressâ€ and defended press secretary Sean Spicerâ€™s inaccurate statement about the size of inauguration crowds.
â€œSean Spicer, our press secretary, gave alternative facts,â€ Conway said.
â€œWait a minute,â€ host Chuck Todd countered. â€œAlternative facts? … Four of the five facts he uttered were just not true. Alternative facts are not facts. They are falsehoods.â€
That has led to all sorts of internet hilarity (my favorite is the picture above). More on this in a second.
Sadly, however, this is an instance in which it’s clear that Conway means or should mean “rebutting facts” or “challenges to those facts.” To be precise, we probably should be talking about “alleged” facts in this case, or better, “claims.” A little charity and precision, in other words, would do much to clarify the matter.
Once we settle this common language problem, we can determine who is more likely to be right about this (not them). This is really what we ought to be focused on anyway (although, this particular question seems completely pointless). We’ve got, after all, a well-established way of settling these things. It’s not great, but it’s well-established.
This raises a question, however, as to whether this choice of term (“alternate facts”) is just the point. Â This “alternate facts” stuff sure provokes a lot of laughter from logic types like yours truly. And perhaps this is just the point. Â Sad.