A quick musing on the correlation (or lack thereof) between the Cons' public statements and reality. When Stephen Harper or one of his minions proclaims that any particular statement X is true, would readers think that the Cons' declaration:
(a) provides reason to think that X is more likely to be true than if the Cons had said nothing?
(b) provides reason to think that X is less likely to be true than if the Cons had said nothing?
(c) is entirely valueless in assessing whether or not X is true?
And does the Cons' recent spate of complete contradictions offer some reason to move both (a) and (b) answers toward (c) instead?
Update: Calgary Grit offers up plenty of good reasons to gravitate toward (b).
No comments:
Post a Comment