Validation is determined by function...

The question of concepts often arises, "what makes this thing valid? And in answering that question, we are most often divided into two distinct groups of reasoning. And I'm guessing by how we individually choose to answer that question, our reason for asking is revealed as much if not more than our desire to have the answer.

These are the two distinct positions of reasoning which will likely never find commonality:
1.) Validity derived from Conformance
2.) Validity derived from Performance

The basic question becomes, "what's your objective? Do you want a result that is approved? Or do you want a result that works? If your goal is always to have the approval of the establishment, you will seldom concede approval of what works, if it violates what's accepted. This is especially problematic. Since the establishment of traditional thinking is seldom if ever capable of making the kinds of radical changes to adapt to evolving circumstances (technology in particular).

There are two basic facts here that must be recognized:
1.) Conformance is subjective
2.) Performance is objective

The problem with subjectivity, is that it is almost always vague and arbitrarily defined.The result of objectivity, is that it is precisely defined. Ultimately it comes down to what works, not what's approved.It should be noted from the comments above, that any group can take on the role of personhood. When a group is comprised of individuals who maintain a single set of characteristics as their collective identity, the group functions as a person. They will have established a corporate identity. And those groups which hold objectivity as their highest concern, are the best positioned to change in the face of necessity.

So let me make a blunt and possibly radical statement.
Anything that doesn't work, isn't valid. But in reality, there's nothing radical about it. Anything that works better than what worked before, should be afforded an even greater validity. If you have a choice between two paths, the shortest one to the goal, is most likely to be the best. If your course of action presents an obstruction to reaching the goal, a different course of action needs to be considered and quickly implemented. And I'm not discussing issues which are governed by morality or ethics. I'm talking only about the selection of tools, and how they're used. Because it is not immoral or unethical to act in rejection of tradition.

In any consideration of any goal, we must precisely define our expected outcome. If we don't do that, we will never know if we have succeeded. The goal must be defined. Limiting ourselves to traditional thinking, only ensures that we will be no more successful than tradition. And if tradition was working, we wouldn't have need for another solution. And when given a choice between a working solution and one that's more efficient, efficiency should be the objective.

Determining the best course of action with the least effort involved, is the most efficient solution that can be obtained. And the highest efficiency, has the highest validity.

You can simply be right (and work), or simply be accepted (and not). The choice is yours.

Shingoshi