Paul E. Newton is to be commended for addressing as challenging a topic as the clarification of the concept of validity. The impetus for this foray is Newton's judgment that, despite decades of development, the definition and elaboration of the term test validity in the 1999 "Standards" retains sufficient ambiguity to permit, if not invite, both misunderstanding and inappropriate practices. His aim is to develop a definition that is tailored to the "educational and psychological measurement and assessment (EPMA) communities" and can be owned by them and not necessarily shared with the wider methodological community that has employed, and will continue to employ, this notion in various contexts. As Newton notes in his historical review, some of the finest minds in education and psychology have labored to define--and refine--the concept of validity (Angoff, 1988). The difficulty is that validity not only involves different kinds of abstractions but also issues related to the standards of argumentation, rules of evidence, and procedural practice. In this article, the author argues that even substantial improvements in clarity (by some reasonable criterion) will yield gains that are, at best, incremental and uneven. Why? Because potential gains are often undercut by a combination of inertia, lack of understanding and/or resources, as well as honest disagreements. Nonetheless, the effort is worthwhile both scientifically and practically: The former because of the importance of repeatedly revisiting foundational concepts and the latter because new perspectives may lead the way to new and improved practices.