4 ms·

I've stopped reading all those "fact check" web sites. They seem to be literalists who can't hear the actual meaning of things being said. Everything is just ab

I've stopped reading all those "fact check" web sites. They seem to be literalists who can't hear the actual meaning of things being said. Everything is just about measurements while ignoring reality. (Now that I think about it, that is also a common problem to technical people too. Failing to recognize the shortcomings of data and measurements.)

krapp 8y ago
>They seem to be literalists who can't hear the actual meaning of things being said. Everything is just about measurements while ignoring reality. "Facts" are about literal, objective, measurable reality. If it depends on a subjective interpretation and reading between the lines, then it isn't a fact.
- coldtea 8y ago
  >"Facts" are about literal, objective, measurable reality. If it depends on a subjective interpretation and reading between the lines, then it isn't a fact. In physics, chemistry, math, etc. facts are the order of the day, yes. But raw facts are few and far between in human affairs and even less so in politics. When people say something in non-hard-science domains, it more often than not depends on a "subjective interpretation", and depending on their phrasing, hidden motives, and eloquence might also need some "reading between the lines" or some charitable interpretation. Nerds applying Vulcan-style logic to such claims just confuse matters more.
  - ataturk 8y ago
    Well, it's a fact that guns were moving from the US to Mexico in fairly large numbers. The media, during the late Bush and the early Obama Administration, although they knew what was really going on, were placing blame on guns being too available in the US. Turns out, however, that it was our own government making the whole thing operate in what they called an attempt to trace where the guns would end up. But of course that was just a cover story when they got caught because (and here's where "facts" end up diverging and what gets us into trouble) really the whole maneuver was about creating a casus belli for softening up the public to accept a policy change (better known as gun prohibition). Meanwhile, all the non-government people, like the gun dealers, were desperately trying to do the right thing but were being threatened with prosecution if they blew the whistle. This is sickening behavior on the part of our government. Barely anyone was punished for it, either. Here is how all this stuff gets started: 1) A behavior is observed 2) Some murky facts exist 3) Media and other poorly informed, lacking expertise people run with the story and apply their agenda to it however they please, either at the behest of their political masters or just because it sells eyeballs 4) Many stupid things happen 5) The public ends up even less well informed, more confused, and generally angrier and agitated, often less free 6) The usual suspects triumph no matter what because dividing people and confusing them is good for them overall Thus, nothing ever gets cleared up unless the facts are so clear and so obvious that even an IQ 60 person gets smacked in the face with them, which isn't often the case. You know who broke the Fast & Furious case wide open? A regular guy, not investigative journalists!
  - krapp 8y ago
    >Nerds applying Vulcan-style logic to such claims just confuse matters more. I don't see Snopes doing that, though. I see them making an argument based on evidence and (in the specific case related the linked article) not even making an absolute claim about it at the end. The people applying "Vulcan-style logic" are those who dismiss sites like Snopes out of hand as being politically biased, or propagandist, and therefore entirely useless.
- MrTonyD 8y ago
  Howard Zinn pointed out that History is always biased. In my own work, I've noticed that Machine Learning is always biased. Basically, any historian picks out which facts to discuss, and is not immune from social pressures when they interpret those facts. Similarly, after running enough machine learning algorithms, I realized that the features measured, the way they are measured, and their relationship to other features is considered "factual raw data" - yet it is the very essence of subjective while often ignoring the greater and more important reality.
pjc50 8y ago
Sadly a necessity of the way the culture wars are fought - everything has to be airtight or people will denounce you as a liar.

krapp 8y ago

>They seem to be literalists who can't hear the actual meaning of things being said. Everything is just about measurements while ignoring reality. "Facts" are about literal, objective, measurable reality. If it depends on a subjective interpretation and reading between the lines, then it isn't a fact.

coldtea 8y ago
>"Facts" are about literal, objective, measurable reality. If it depends on a subjective interpretation and reading between the lines, then it isn't a fact. In physics, chemistry, math, etc. facts are the order of the day, yes. But raw facts are few and far between in human affairs and even less so in politics. When people say something in non-hard-science domains, it more often than not depends on a "subjective interpretation", and depending on their phrasing, hidden motives, and eloquence might also need some "reading between the lines" or some charitable interpretation. Nerds applying Vulcan-style logic to such claims just confuse matters more.
- ataturk 8y ago
  Well, it's a fact that guns were moving from the US to Mexico in fairly large numbers. The media, during the late Bush and the early Obama Administration, although they knew what was really going on, were placing blame on guns being too available in the US. Turns out, however, that it was our own government making the whole thing operate in what they called an attempt to trace where the guns would end up. But of course that was just a cover story when they got caught because (and here's where "facts" end up diverging and what gets us into trouble) really the whole maneuver was about creating a casus belli for softening up the public to accept a policy change (better known as gun prohibition). Meanwhile, all the non-government people, like the gun dealers, were desperately trying to do the right thing but were being threatened with prosecution if they blew the whistle. This is sickening behavior on the part of our government. Barely anyone was punished for it, either. Here is how all this stuff gets started: 1) A behavior is observed 2) Some murky facts exist 3) Media and other poorly informed, lacking expertise people run with the story and apply their agenda to it however they please, either at the behest of their political masters or just because it sells eyeballs 4) Many stupid things happen 5) The public ends up even less well informed, more confused, and generally angrier and agitated, often less free 6) The usual suspects triumph no matter what because dividing people and confusing them is good for them overall Thus, nothing ever gets cleared up unless the facts are so clear and so obvious that even an IQ 60 person gets smacked in the face with them, which isn't often the case. You know who broke the Fast & Furious case wide open? A regular guy, not investigative journalists!
- krapp 8y ago
  >Nerds applying Vulcan-style logic to such claims just confuse matters more. I don't see Snopes doing that, though. I see them making an argument based on evidence and (in the specific case related the linked article) not even making an absolute claim about it at the end. The people applying "Vulcan-style logic" are those who dismiss sites like Snopes out of hand as being politically biased, or propagandist, and therefore entirely useless.
MrTonyD 8y ago
Howard Zinn pointed out that History is always biased. In my own work, I've noticed that Machine Learning is always biased. Basically, any historian picks out which facts to discuss, and is not immune from social pressures when they interpret those facts. Similarly, after running enough machine learning algorithms, I realized that the features measured, the way they are measured, and their relationship to other features is considered "factual raw data" - yet it is the very essence of subjective while often ignoring the greater and more important reality.

pjc50 8y ago

Sadly a necessity of the way the culture wars are fought - everything has to be airtight or people will denounce you as a liar.