you can make judgement calls and still be better than coin flipping. just because it's not an automated, exact science doesn't mean that it cannot edge closer t

you can make judgement calls and still be better than coin flipping. just because it's not an automated, exact science doesn't mean that it cannot edge closer to the truth. almost everything in life is not exact, but we still know some people lie more than others. I agree with this in the fuzzy world of politics you have no choice but to bring in probabilities. I would think that this system could be automated by software to aid the fact checker in coming to a decision. I would say that aggregating a politicians history of lying and using that as a weight as to whether a suspect statement could be untruthful would help. If a candidate has a history of being less than truthful and a certainty of fact cannot be deduced one could look at weight factors such as history of truthfulness on a subject to help them come to a conclusion. These methods and the algorithms could them be published for scrutiny. This way it is not arbitrary, it may not be 100% accurate but at least the system is open and the method reproducible. From there it can be refined to help aid in accuracy.