5 ms·

I wasn't focusing on guilt. I pointed out the logical fallacy in you stating the burden of proof was on the fact checker.

• inglor_cz 5y ago
  You consider "being unbiased" as a default in a world where most people are biased. This is not the same as "not beating your wife". Vast majority of people are indeed innocent of such crimes, so there is no problem treating them as innocent by default. I would personally be happy if the medium didn't try to prove its absence of bias, which would indeed be hard, but at least tried to prove that it gives platform to sufficiently different views. Note that we speak about "real world" proofs (preponderance of evidence etc.), not pure abstract mathematical logic which cannot be applied fully in real, messy human society.
  • croon 5y ago
    > You consider "being unbiased" as a default in a world where most people are biased. Again, it's not about being default, it's about not being possible to prove, which you asked for in your original post. The number of people or publications being 1% or 99% is irrelevant. If someone is biased, it's trivial to point out how, and if they're not, it's impossible to prove so. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot > Note that we speak about "real world" proofs (preponderance of evidence etc.), not pure abstract mathematical logic which cannot be applied fully in real, messy human society. This I'm not sure what it's supposed to mean. Logic is basically a flow chart where things either follow or don't. It's absolutely applicable to real world messy human society.
    • inglor_cz 5y ago
      Try solving any court case with flow charts. In many situations, you will have contradicting evidence and you will have to decide the case anyway.
      • croon 5y ago
        Logic is not complicared in your scenario either, but merely the veracity of the variables.