3 ms·

> One of the points of fact-checking is to point out to "yeah, it's unlikely" to people who would not otherwise know. Saying some prediction about the future i

by pdonis 5y ago

> One of the points of fact-checking is to point out to "yeah, it's unlikely" to people who would not otherwise know. Saying some prediction about the future is unlikely to be correct is not fact-checking. That's the whole point. Predictions aren't facts. Unlikely predictions aren't false facts. They're unlikely predictions. > because the probability of an asteroid colliding with earth is only 99.7%, not 100%, the fictional US president decides it's OK to "sit tight and assess". Saying that it is a good idea to act on predictions that are overwhelmingly likely is not the same as saying that those predictions are facts. If you want to improve other people's critical thinking skills, you need to make sure yours are good. Calling predictions facts and acting as if they're the same thing is not good critical thinking.

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
> Saying some prediction about the future is unlikely to be correct is not fact-checking. That's the whole point. Predictions aren't facts. Unlikely predictions aren't false facts. They're unlikely predictions. Our culture has become filled with a certain kind of noise in which people who frequently don't know what they are talking about make predictions about the future. I don't really care what you want to call a counter-balancing trend to that - I would agree that "fact-checking" for things that are clearly predictions is likely not the best term, but it's not the worst either, since frequently the process of pointing out just how ridiculous the predictions are will involve using actual facts. So in that context, "fact checking" does not mean "check that the facts claimed are correct", it means "check the facts underlying the prediction". But call it what it should be called or not, it's still a valuable act.
- pdonis 5y ago
  > Our culture has become filled with a certain kind of noise in which people who frequently don't know what they are talking about make predictions about the future. Focusing on "fact-checking" in general, let alone expanding it to include "prediction checking", worsens the huge amount of noise in our culture of supposedly authoritative pronouncements being made that turn out to be wrong. The Facebook "fact check" that is the subject of the article we are discussing is a case in point. If Facebook weren't so fixated on trying to remove "noise" through "fact checking", they wouldn't be going overboard all the time and removing things that aren't noise at all, but useful dissent. Also, the very term "fact checking", as it is being used in our culture now, is a Russell conjugation (someone else brought up Russell conjugations elsewhere in this thread). Facebook is "fact checking" (actually their outsourced third parties who remain anonymous and unaccountable are doing it, but let that pass); those who support Facebook (and other "fact checkers") are "helping to spread authoritative information"; those who question Facebook (and other "fact checkers") are "questioning authority" (even if they cite actual facts). In short, while I agree that our culture is filled with noise, I don't think all the noise is from individuals who don't know what they're talking about; I think a lot of it is from organizations who don't like to have their power and authority questioned.
  - _dain_ 5y ago
    I am a fact checker, you are a journalist, he is spreading harmful disinformation.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
      I haven't provided any information at all. I provided some opinions. If you're actually a fact checker, that would seem to behavior that plays directly into the critiques of such work. However, I suspect this remark is just a play on the "they are stubborn, i am persistent" trope, in which case I don't see the relevance at this point in this sub-thread.
      - _dain_ 5y ago
        yes it's a russell conjugation joke (and an example of something that is blindingly obvious to one person, and evidently not to another)
        PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
        https://xkcd.com/1053/ https://xkcd.com/1053/ of course
  - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
    I would agree that "fact checking" (at least of several varieties) is not unambiguously good, and may in fact turn out to be harmful, quite possibly for reasons not directly related to the content of "fact checking" itself. I would also agree that the case discussed in TFA is a good example of "fact checking" that likely does more harm than good. However, that doesn't mean that the concept of "fact checking" is inherently problematic. It could be that there is no way in our current culture of doing anything remotely like what "fact checking" probably needs to be. To me, that's still not an argument against the concept, even if it is necessary to accept for now, the actual execution issues force us all to be profoundly skeptical about it.
    - 5y ago

by pdonis 5y ago

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago

> Saying some prediction about the future is unlikely to be correct is not fact-checking. That's the whole point. Predictions aren't facts. Unlikely predictions aren't false facts. They're unlikely predictions. Our culture has become filled with a certain kind of noise in which people who frequently don't know what they are talking about make predictions about the future. I don't really care what you want to call a counter-balancing trend to that - I would agree that "fact-checking" for things that are clearly predictions is likely not the best term, but it's not the worst either, since frequently the process of pointing out just how ridiculous the predictions are will involve using actual facts. So in that context, "fact checking" does not mean "check that the facts claimed are correct", it means "check the facts underlying the prediction". But call it what it should be called or not, it's still a valuable act.

pdonis 5y ago
> Our culture has become filled with a certain kind of noise in which people who frequently don't know what they are talking about make predictions about the future. Focusing on "fact-checking" in general, let alone expanding it to include "prediction checking", worsens the huge amount of noise in our culture of supposedly authoritative pronouncements being made that turn out to be wrong. The Facebook "fact check" that is the subject of the article we are discussing is a case in point. If Facebook weren't so fixated on trying to remove "noise" through "fact checking", they wouldn't be going overboard all the time and removing things that aren't noise at all, but useful dissent. Also, the very term "fact checking", as it is being used in our culture now, is a Russell conjugation (someone else brought up Russell conjugations elsewhere in this thread). Facebook is "fact checking" (actually their outsourced third parties who remain anonymous and unaccountable are doing it, but let that pass); those who support Facebook (and other "fact checkers") are "helping to spread authoritative information"; those who question Facebook (and other "fact checkers") are "questioning authority" (even if they cite actual facts). In short, while I agree that our culture is filled with noise, I don't think all the noise is from individuals who don't know what they're talking about; I think a lot of it is from organizations who don't like to have their power and authority questioned.
- _dain_ 5y ago
  I am a fact checker, you are a journalist, he is spreading harmful disinformation.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
    I haven't provided any information at all. I provided some opinions. If you're actually a fact checker, that would seem to behavior that plays directly into the critiques of such work. However, I suspect this remark is just a play on the "they are stubborn, i am persistent" trope, in which case I don't see the relevance at this point in this sub-thread.
    - _dain_ 5y ago
      yes it's a russell conjugation joke (and an example of something that is blindingly obvious to one person, and evidently not to another)
      - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
        https://xkcd.com/1053/ https://xkcd.com/1053/ of course
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
  I would agree that "fact checking" (at least of several varieties) is not unambiguously good, and may in fact turn out to be harmful, quite possibly for reasons not directly related to the content of "fact checking" itself. I would also agree that the case discussed in TFA is a good example of "fact checking" that likely does more harm than good. However, that doesn't mean that the concept of "fact checking" is inherently problematic. It could be that there is no way in our current culture of doing anything remotely like what "fact checking" probably needs to be. To me, that's still not an argument against the concept, even if it is necessary to accept for now, the actual execution issues force us all to be profoundly skeptical about it.
  - 5y ago