16 ms·

At one time, Snopes was part of the fact-checking team at Facebook. This comment goes to show that having an arbiter of truth is a bad idea considering it's har

by j_m_b 5y ago

At one time, Snopes was part of the fact-checking team at Facebook. This comment goes to show that having an arbiter of truth is a bad idea considering it's hard to accurately know everything. Imagine Doctors trying to debunk the official fact-checker statements and being labeled as misinformation simply due to the fact that they disagree with the fact-checker!

harpiaharpyja 5y ago
Fact-checking is a dead end, a poor substitute for development of critical thinking skills in the broader population. It may be more challenging, but that's what we need to start working towards.
- unclebucknasty 5y ago
  But, even critical thinking ability relies on good inputs. There must be some baseline of facts to work with. I do agree however that fact-checking is extremely challenging, but for different reasons. That is, in a society that is being programmed to choose the reality/truth they prefer, you'll end up with cult-like belief systems that no amount of fact-checking will break through.
  - javert 5y ago
    For a critical thinker, the baseline facts come from the person's own direct experience. They have to. For example, I probably wouldn't 100% believe that hundreds of people can cross the sky in a metal tube (i.e., modern jet airplane) if I had only been told about it. But I've seen it myself. Another example: I've learned enough about technology to think the moon landings were feasible, and I've learned enough about society to think that a successful conspiracy around the moon landings is implausible. So I believe the moon landings happened.
    - technothrasher 5y ago
      Won't relying on direct experience as a basis for critical thinking lead to all kinds of problems due to faulty perception and cognitive biases that we all share? Additionally, how are we to evaluate situations were are not likely to have any experience with? None of us have any experience with, say, the big bang or anything close to what the universe was like then, but can't we still come to many likely conclusions about it without any even indirect experience? So doesn't critical thinking in fact have to have a baseline in something other than one's own direct experience? Rationality, possibly?
      - javert 5y ago
        Rationality is a process, but it has to have data to work with. That data comes from perception of the world (sight, hearing, etc.). There is no such thing as "pure" rationality without sense data to work with. Evidence for the big bang ultimately comes from sense data. You have to integrate a lot of sense data into scientific theories, which then are integrated with other scientific theories, and so on. Science has gotten so far - but it all started out with simple experiments, eventually microscopes and weak telescopes, etc. and built from there. Critical thinking allows you to overcome cognitive biases. Faulty perception is pretty easy to detect. A stick in a glass of water will look bent, but it's easy to figure out that it actually isn't bent.
    - exporectomy 5y ago
      You should have multiple independent types of observation. If you only know about the metal tube idea from flying in one yourself, it might have been a simulation. You should have other facts that also support the same conclusion (eg. knowledge of aerodynamics, people quickly moving around the world, etc.) so that it would be hard for them all to be wrong in the same way. You don't have to witness it with your own eyes because, again, it would be hard for them all to create the same consistent lie from multiple perspectives even if they were conspiring.
      - javert 5y ago
        I agree with that, yes.
      - playguardin 5y ago
        What's with all this nerdy parsing on every thread of this kind about Occam's razor and philosophy is science and logical fallacies and all this talk that may suggest those in power have our interests in mind. They do not. It is very simple. Do Not Trust Authority. Period.
    - kelnos 5y ago
      > For example, I probably wouldn't 100% believe that hundreds of people can cross the sky in a metal tube (i.e., modern jet airplane) if I had only been told about it. But I've seen it myself. By that reasoning, all the people who deny the moon landings happened are completely logical, no? And there should be a lot more of them, right? Hell, I've never even seen a rocket take off (outside of video broadcasts), let alone seen spacecraft in flight, so I shouldn't believe in the moon landings either, right?
      - javert 5y ago
        My explanation was incomplete, to make for a good and clear example. If I hadn't seen airplanes and flown in them, I'd still be open to believing they exist. My belief would depend on what other evidence there is (broadly speaking), as in my example of the moon landings. It's easier to make a strong judgment about the existence of airplanes, than about the moon landings. I'd argue that most things in life are more like airplanes in that regard.
  - exporectomy 5y ago
    You can do a lot with thought experiments that show logical inconsistencies in ideas without any actual knowledge of the facts. Physics is a fairly clear example. It's hard to make all those equations work without creating paradoxes unless they actually model the real world correctly. If it was all fake but internally consistent, then even a small amount of observation could destroy the whole thing.
    - unclebucknasty 5y ago
      >You can do a lot with thought experiments that show logical inconsistencies in ideas without any actual knowledge of the facts Yes, what you're getting at there is "a priori" knowledge in epistemological-speak and I agree that it forms the basis for much of what we consider true. But, even the ability to accurately conduct and assess the results of those experiments relies on some set of facts. Your physics example speaks to exactly that: i.e. there's a foundation of "rules" that underpins the field, much of which have been developed through rigorous observation, experimentation, mathematical proof, etc. These rules form the "accepted truths" through which we are able to think critically about new ideas. So, while we can debate degree, it should be clear that there has to be some accepted base reality to make sense of anything. And, of course, in this thread analogies to science are a bit of a digression. That is, the topic is fact-checking sites, which are largely about dispelling disinformation/misinformation of the social/political variety. So, for instance, whether x politician did or did not do something can be important to know when trying to critically assess their fitness.
      - exporectomy 5y ago
        I'm not talking about commonly accepted physics knowledge but people contradicting themselves - essentially saying "A and not A are both true" without realizing it. Well, unless the a priori knowledge you're talking about is logic, but then we're in over my head.
- ralph84 5y ago
  Has there ever been a time in history when those in power desired critical thinking skills in the broader population? Those in power want a compliant population, not a questioning one.
  - richk449 5y ago
    I’m curious what you mean by this. Assuming you are American, do you think that Obama or Trump or Biden wish that the population was more compliant, and had weaker critical thinking? Why would that benefit them? Most leaders think they are right, and I would think they would want enhanced critical thinking in the population so that the people would better appreciate the leaders rightness.
    - hobs 5y ago
      That's so far from the truth it is comical - populism is literally appealing to the base and stupid indistinct and creating an environment hostile to intellectual thinking... and it's been kind of a big thing the last 100 years...
    - rustyminnow 5y ago
      Sure, the President of the United States holds an office with a lot of executive power, but there are plenty of other people with other forms of power that would have an interest in a compliant population. I hate to beat the "evil-zillionaire" drum, but if you made your fortunes selling people juice-boxes they don't really need, you'd prefer it if they complicitly buy all the junk your ads tell them to buy instead of critically thinking "maybe I DON'T need another one" Take also cult-leaders for example (or other con-men in power/leadership positions). If their followers possessed the critical thinking skills to see through their manipulations, they wouldn't have any followers. Complacency in this case is fundamental
      - richk449 5y ago
        Okay, sure, cult leaders and juice box company executives don’t want critical thinking in the populace. I guess those aren’t who I think of when I think of the powerful.
- tablespoon 5y ago
  > Fact-checking is a dead end, a poor substitute for development of critical thinking skills in the broader population. It may be more challenging, but that's what we need to start working towards. Pretty sure that work was started thousands of years ago. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. IMHO, insisting the only solution is to increase "critical thinking" to unheard of levels is wishful thinking that mainly serves to shoot down necessary mitigations for the psychological and social failings of individuals and communities. Fact checking isn't a perfect institution, but nothing is.
  - unclebucknasty 5y ago
    Good points. It would absolutely be helpful if more people thought more critically. However, even if we achieved that goal, we still can't allow bad actors to unleash a constant firehose of disinformation on society. The truth can't be so hard to discover in a functioning society/democracy, and it shouldn't require an entire population to be expert critical thinkers who devote significant time undergoing epistemological exercises to discover base reality.
- emodendroket 5y ago
  I have a lot of quibbles with "fact checking" as practiced as a distinct vertical in news sites, but in principle I don't find anything wrong with examining claims to determine whether they are true. To make it unnecessary you'd need not just critical thinking but also everyone constantly doing their own research, which would rather limit the number of things anyone could have an opinion about.
- pmoriarty 5y ago
  You can't critically think your way in to deciding what really happened at the Gulf of Tonkin[1], or whether the CIA organised fake vaccination drive to get Osama bin Laden's family DNA[2] It's claims like these and dozens of others that are made every day that fact checkers need to verify, as few if any of us have the time or expertise to check all these claims ourselves. [1] - https://www.usni.org/magazines/naval-history-magazine/2008/february/truth-about-tonkin https://www.usni.org/magazines/naval-history-magazine/2008/f... [2] - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jul/11/cia-fake-vaccinations-osama-bin-ladens-dna https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jul/11/cia-fake-vacci...
tablespoon 5y ago
> Imagine Doctors trying to debunk the official fact-checker statements and being labeled as misinformation simply due to the fact that they disagree with the fact-checker! Though it's worth noting that MDs (and all other kinds of doctors) can be incompetent and/or batshit insane. For instance, I had the pleasure of viewing a video where a psychiatrist leaned on his MD credential to "debunk" COVID and the efficacy and safety of the vaccine. Even ignoring his personal competency, I wouldn't be surprised if his specialty has the least qualification to speak on the topic of infectious disease of all medical specialties. Here's the video for anyone interested: https://off-guardian.org/2020/12/09/watch-ask-the-experts-covid-19-vaccine/ https://off-guardian.org/2020/12/09/watch-ask-the-experts-co..., the guy I'm talking about is the first speaker (didn't bother with any of the others). Edit: watching a bit more of that video, many of the other speakers emphasize being "medical doctors" and several use the odd phrase "medical pandemic." I wonder if they're reading from a script?
- jeffbee 5y ago
  The whole COVID "skeptic" circus is full of quacks with irrelevant credentials, like urologists and orthodontists. As a prominent example, I give you Rand Paul. If you take advice on infectious diseases from an ophthalmologist, you're going to have a bad time.
  - jdavis703 5y ago
    My ophthalmologist requires masks and social distancing in his office. He also recommended against wearing contacts for the duration of the pandemic (he says glasses offer more protection.) Why am I going to have a bad time for following his rules and advice?
    - tablespoon 5y ago
      >> If you take advice on infectious diseases from an ophthalmologist, you're going to have a bad time. > Why am I going to have a bad time for following his rules and advice? You're not, you're just being over-literal. Most ophthalmologists are sensible people who will give guidance outside their fields that comports with the guidance from medical professionals in that field. That sounds like your ophthalmologist. However, if you find an ophthalmologist who blatantly contradicts the guidance from areas far outside his field, then that's when "you're going to have a bad time." The reason for that is you've likely found someone who doesn't respect the limits of his own knowledge and experience.

by j_m_b 5y ago

harpiaharpyja 5y ago

Fact-checking is a dead end, a poor substitute for development of critical thinking skills in the broader population. It may be more challenging, but that's what we need to start working towards.

unclebucknasty 5y ago
But, even critical thinking ability relies on good inputs. There must be some baseline of facts to work with. I do agree however that fact-checking is extremely challenging, but for different reasons. That is, in a society that is being programmed to choose the reality/truth they prefer, you'll end up with cult-like belief systems that no amount of fact-checking will break through.
- javert 5y ago
  For a critical thinker, the baseline facts come from the person's own direct experience. They have to. For example, I probably wouldn't 100% believe that hundreds of people can cross the sky in a metal tube (i.e., modern jet airplane) if I had only been told about it. But I've seen it myself. Another example: I've learned enough about technology to think the moon landings were feasible, and I've learned enough about society to think that a successful conspiracy around the moon landings is implausible. So I believe the moon landings happened.
  - technothrasher 5y ago
    Won't relying on direct experience as a basis for critical thinking lead to all kinds of problems due to faulty perception and cognitive biases that we all share? Additionally, how are we to evaluate situations were are not likely to have any experience with? None of us have any experience with, say, the big bang or anything close to what the universe was like then, but can't we still come to many likely conclusions about it without any even indirect experience? So doesn't critical thinking in fact have to have a baseline in something other than one's own direct experience? Rationality, possibly?
    - javert 5y ago
      Rationality is a process, but it has to have data to work with. That data comes from perception of the world (sight, hearing, etc.). There is no such thing as "pure" rationality without sense data to work with. Evidence for the big bang ultimately comes from sense data. You have to integrate a lot of sense data into scientific theories, which then are integrated with other scientific theories, and so on. Science has gotten so far - but it all started out with simple experiments, eventually microscopes and weak telescopes, etc. and built from there. Critical thinking allows you to overcome cognitive biases. Faulty perception is pretty easy to detect. A stick in a glass of water will look bent, but it's easy to figure out that it actually isn't bent.
  - exporectomy 5y ago
    You should have multiple independent types of observation. If you only know about the metal tube idea from flying in one yourself, it might have been a simulation. You should have other facts that also support the same conclusion (eg. knowledge of aerodynamics, people quickly moving around the world, etc.) so that it would be hard for them all to be wrong in the same way. You don't have to witness it with your own eyes because, again, it would be hard for them all to create the same consistent lie from multiple perspectives even if they were conspiring.
    - javert 5y ago
      I agree with that, yes.
    - playguardin 5y ago
      What's with all this nerdy parsing on every thread of this kind about Occam's razor and philosophy is science and logical fallacies and all this talk that may suggest those in power have our interests in mind. They do not. It is very simple. Do Not Trust Authority. Period.
  - kelnos 5y ago
    > For example, I probably wouldn't 100% believe that hundreds of people can cross the sky in a metal tube (i.e., modern jet airplane) if I had only been told about it. But I've seen it myself. By that reasoning, all the people who deny the moon landings happened are completely logical, no? And there should be a lot more of them, right? Hell, I've never even seen a rocket take off (outside of video broadcasts), let alone seen spacecraft in flight, so I shouldn't believe in the moon landings either, right?
    - javert 5y ago
      My explanation was incomplete, to make for a good and clear example. If I hadn't seen airplanes and flown in them, I'd still be open to believing they exist. My belief would depend on what other evidence there is (broadly speaking), as in my example of the moon landings. It's easier to make a strong judgment about the existence of airplanes, than about the moon landings. I'd argue that most things in life are more like airplanes in that regard.
- exporectomy 5y ago
  You can do a lot with thought experiments that show logical inconsistencies in ideas without any actual knowledge of the facts. Physics is a fairly clear example. It's hard to make all those equations work without creating paradoxes unless they actually model the real world correctly. If it was all fake but internally consistent, then even a small amount of observation could destroy the whole thing.
  - unclebucknasty 5y ago
    >You can do a lot with thought experiments that show logical inconsistencies in ideas without any actual knowledge of the facts Yes, what you're getting at there is "a priori" knowledge in epistemological-speak and I agree that it forms the basis for much of what we consider true. But, even the ability to accurately conduct and assess the results of those experiments relies on some set of facts. Your physics example speaks to exactly that: i.e. there's a foundation of "rules" that underpins the field, much of which have been developed through rigorous observation, experimentation, mathematical proof, etc. These rules form the "accepted truths" through which we are able to think critically about new ideas. So, while we can debate degree, it should be clear that there has to be some accepted base reality to make sense of anything. And, of course, in this thread analogies to science are a bit of a digression. That is, the topic is fact-checking sites, which are largely about dispelling disinformation/misinformation of the social/political variety. So, for instance, whether x politician did or did not do something can be important to know when trying to critically assess their fitness.
    - exporectomy 5y ago
      I'm not talking about commonly accepted physics knowledge but people contradicting themselves - essentially saying "A and not A are both true" without realizing it. Well, unless the a priori knowledge you're talking about is logic, but then we're in over my head.
ralph84 5y ago
Has there ever been a time in history when those in power desired critical thinking skills in the broader population? Those in power want a compliant population, not a questioning one.
- richk449 5y ago
  I’m curious what you mean by this. Assuming you are American, do you think that Obama or Trump or Biden wish that the population was more compliant, and had weaker critical thinking? Why would that benefit them? Most leaders think they are right, and I would think they would want enhanced critical thinking in the population so that the people would better appreciate the leaders rightness.
  - hobs 5y ago
    That's so far from the truth it is comical - populism is literally appealing to the base and stupid indistinct and creating an environment hostile to intellectual thinking... and it's been kind of a big thing the last 100 years...
  - rustyminnow 5y ago
    Sure, the President of the United States holds an office with a lot of executive power, but there are plenty of other people with other forms of power that would have an interest in a compliant population. I hate to beat the "evil-zillionaire" drum, but if you made your fortunes selling people juice-boxes they don't really need, you'd prefer it if they complicitly buy all the junk your ads tell them to buy instead of critically thinking "maybe I DON'T need another one" Take also cult-leaders for example (or other con-men in power/leadership positions). If their followers possessed the critical thinking skills to see through their manipulations, they wouldn't have any followers. Complacency in this case is fundamental
    - richk449 5y ago
      Okay, sure, cult leaders and juice box company executives don’t want critical thinking in the populace. I guess those aren’t who I think of when I think of the powerful.
tablespoon 5y ago
> Fact-checking is a dead end, a poor substitute for development of critical thinking skills in the broader population. It may be more challenging, but that's what we need to start working towards. Pretty sure that work was started thousands of years ago. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. IMHO, insisting the only solution is to increase "critical thinking" to unheard of levels is wishful thinking that mainly serves to shoot down necessary mitigations for the psychological and social failings of individuals and communities. Fact checking isn't a perfect institution, but nothing is.
- unclebucknasty 5y ago
  Good points. It would absolutely be helpful if more people thought more critically. However, even if we achieved that goal, we still can't allow bad actors to unleash a constant firehose of disinformation on society. The truth can't be so hard to discover in a functioning society/democracy, and it shouldn't require an entire population to be expert critical thinkers who devote significant time undergoing epistemological exercises to discover base reality.
emodendroket 5y ago
I have a lot of quibbles with "fact checking" as practiced as a distinct vertical in news sites, but in principle I don't find anything wrong with examining claims to determine whether they are true. To make it unnecessary you'd need not just critical thinking but also everyone constantly doing their own research, which would rather limit the number of things anyone could have an opinion about.
pmoriarty 5y ago
You can't critically think your way in to deciding what really happened at the Gulf of Tonkin[1], or whether the CIA organised fake vaccination drive to get Osama bin Laden's family DNA[2] It's claims like these and dozens of others that are made every day that fact checkers need to verify, as few if any of us have the time or expertise to check all these claims ourselves. [1] - https://www.usni.org/magazines/naval-history-magazine/2008/february/truth-about-tonkin https://www.usni.org/magazines/naval-history-magazine/2008/f... [2] - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jul/11/cia-fake-vaccinations-osama-bin-ladens-dna https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jul/11/cia-fake-vacci...

tablespoon 5y ago

> Imagine Doctors trying to debunk the official fact-checker statements and being labeled as misinformation simply due to the fact that they disagree with the fact-checker! Though it's worth noting that MDs (and all other kinds of doctors) can be incompetent and/or batshit insane. For instance, I had the pleasure of viewing a video where a psychiatrist leaned on his MD credential to "debunk" COVID and the efficacy and safety of the vaccine. Even ignoring his personal competency, I wouldn't be surprised if his specialty has the least qualification to speak on the topic of infectious disease of all medical specialties. Here's the video for anyone interested: https://off-guardian.org/2020/12/09/watch-ask-the-experts-covid-19-vaccine/ https://off-guardian.org/2020/12/09/watch-ask-the-experts-co..., the guy I'm talking about is the first speaker (didn't bother with any of the others). Edit: watching a bit more of that video, many of the other speakers emphasize being "medical doctors" and several use the odd phrase "medical pandemic." I wonder if they're reading from a script?

jeffbee 5y ago
The whole COVID "skeptic" circus is full of quacks with irrelevant credentials, like urologists and orthodontists. As a prominent example, I give you Rand Paul. If you take advice on infectious diseases from an ophthalmologist, you're going to have a bad time.
- jdavis703 5y ago
  My ophthalmologist requires masks and social distancing in his office. He also recommended against wearing contacts for the duration of the pandemic (he says glasses offer more protection.) Why am I going to have a bad time for following his rules and advice?
  - tablespoon 5y ago
    >> If you take advice on infectious diseases from an ophthalmologist, you're going to have a bad time. > Why am I going to have a bad time for following his rules and advice? You're not, you're just being over-literal. Most ophthalmologists are sensible people who will give guidance outside their fields that comports with the guidance from medical professionals in that field. That sounds like your ophthalmologist. However, if you find an ophthalmologist who blatantly contradicts the guidance from areas far outside his field, then that's when "you're going to have a bad time." The reason for that is you've likely found someone who doesn't respect the limits of his own knowledge and experience.