4 ms·

Opinions supported by provable facts is what distinguish a scientific dissertation compared to a political statement. Politicians do not generally support their

by belorn 2y ago

Opinions supported by provable facts is what distinguish a scientific dissertation compared to a political statement. Politicians do not generally support their opinions with provable facts, and while they can consult with scientists to form opinions or support a political statement, this seems more of the exception than the rule. In social science, defining provable facts is also a major problem since very few publications can be replicated. In fact, most provable facts in social science is estimated to be provable false, a fact found by meta studies a while back. A common finding is that the further one goes from pure math, the worse the provable facts become with social science sitting furthers away in the spectrum. Thus I often see a different and more strict definition of "fake news". Fake news is only when an opinion has been been made with the intention of misleading for political gain, with strong emphasis on the intention aspect. It thus becomes very close to the definition of propaganda, but with additional restrictions. Intentions are also very hard to prove, especially with provable facts.

prophesi 2y ago
Do you happen to know where the meta study on this is from? I know of one paper that puts the blame on biomedical research[0], but it makes intuitive sense for the same to apply to social science. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_Most_Published_Research_Findings_Are_False https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_Most_Published_Research_Fi...
- belorn 2y ago
  The initial key word I would start with if someone is interested in studying this concept would be "replication crisis". Wikipedia has a good starting off point with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis I would not point to a specific study. Primarily because I would have to dig through a rather long list to find the one that I found "best", but also because in terms of fact finding, its better if people did this independently. "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" is a good one however.
  - prophesi 2y ago
    Thanks! I missed that in the wiki article. Replication crisis put me on the right path.
leereeves 2y ago
> A common finding is that the further one goes from pure math, the worse the provable facts become with social science sitting furthers away in the spectrum. I think this is true, but it's not because of the distance from pure math. It's a choice made by researchers and journals regarding the standard of evidence required. Physics demands very strong evidence for publication, a p-value of 5-sigma or more, less than a 1 in a million chance of getting a publishable result from a random experiment. Social science is typically satisfied with a p-value of 0.05, a 1 in 20 chance of getting a publishable result from a random experiment. That means a whole lot of results are published that are nothing more than the scientific equivalent of dice rolling snake-eyes. In fact, rolling snake-eyes is less likely (1/36) than getting a publishable result from any given social science experiment (1/20). Fortunately, this also means it's an easy problem to solve, if the will existed. Simply requiring a much higher standard of proof would filter out a lot of the false social science results.
Retric 2y ago
Fake news consist of blatantly false facts and conspiracy theories. The NEWS bit is there because these stories are suggesting something specific happened or was revealed. If it says ‘Ukraine invaded Russia,’ that’s fake news. More often it’s conspiracy crap like “Deep state behind X!” It’s not so ambitious because it’s dificult to completely avoid facts. Political discourse regularly refers to actual facts ‘Russia invaded Ukraine’ is the kind of thing you can fact check and it passes. Politics also uses facts in misleading ways. The kind of things where Fact Check goes: “Trump wrongly said the judge wouldn’t allow an “advice of counsel” defense. Before the trial, Trump’s attorneys chose not to seek such a defense, and Merchan held them to that decision.” aren’t what most people refer to as Fake News. From a certain point of view ‘Darth Vader killed your father’ and Social Security may tax income but it’s not income tax because we have a tax called Income Tax yadda yadda.
- largbae 2y ago
  Was the idea that COVID-19 leaked from a lab in Wuhan fake news? Is the idea that the vaccines may have side effects worth understanding fake news? That is what was defined as fake news and actively censored in our very recent past. The problem with censoring fake news is that ultimately someone has to decide what is real and what is fake, and once censored, it becomes very difficult to discuss and revise that decision.
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
    > Was the idea that COVID-19 leaked from a lab in Wuhan fake news? What facts was the assertion based on? I've always thought that while possible there wasn't supporting evidence.
    - largbae 2y ago
      That is a separate topic but recent congressional hearings would be a great way to research. The point that I am making is that both of these topics were censored as fake news, and neither is probably false.

by belorn 2y ago

prophesi 2y ago

Do you happen to know where the meta study on this is from? I know of one paper that puts the blame on biomedical research[0], but it makes intuitive sense for the same to apply to social science. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_Most_Published_Research_Findings_Are_False https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_Most_Published_Research_Fi...

belorn 2y ago
The initial key word I would start with if someone is interested in studying this concept would be "replication crisis". Wikipedia has a good starting off point with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis I would not point to a specific study. Primarily because I would have to dig through a rather long list to find the one that I found "best", but also because in terms of fact finding, its better if people did this independently. "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" is a good one however.
- prophesi 2y ago
  Thanks! I missed that in the wiki article. Replication crisis put me on the right path.

leereeves 2y ago

> A common finding is that the further one goes from pure math, the worse the provable facts become with social science sitting furthers away in the spectrum. I think this is true, but it's not because of the distance from pure math. It's a choice made by researchers and journals regarding the standard of evidence required. Physics demands very strong evidence for publication, a p-value of 5-sigma or more, less than a 1 in a million chance of getting a publishable result from a random experiment. Social science is typically satisfied with a p-value of 0.05, a 1 in 20 chance of getting a publishable result from a random experiment. That means a whole lot of results are published that are nothing more than the scientific equivalent of dice rolling snake-eyes. In fact, rolling snake-eyes is less likely (1/36) than getting a publishable result from any given social science experiment (1/20). Fortunately, this also means it's an easy problem to solve, if the will existed. Simply requiring a much higher standard of proof would filter out a lot of the false social science results.

Retric 2y ago

Fake news consist of blatantly false facts and conspiracy theories. The NEWS bit is there because these stories are suggesting something specific happened or was revealed. If it says ‘Ukraine invaded Russia,’ that’s fake news. More often it’s conspiracy crap like “Deep state behind X!” It’s not so ambitious because it’s dificult to completely avoid facts. Political discourse regularly refers to actual facts ‘Russia invaded Ukraine’ is the kind of thing you can fact check and it passes. Politics also uses facts in misleading ways. The kind of things where Fact Check goes: “Trump wrongly said the judge wouldn’t allow an “advice of counsel” defense. Before the trial, Trump’s attorneys chose not to seek such a defense, and Merchan held them to that decision.” aren’t what most people refer to as Fake News. From a certain point of view ‘Darth Vader killed your father’ and Social Security may tax income but it’s not income tax because we have a tax called Income Tax yadda yadda.

largbae 2y ago
Was the idea that COVID-19 leaked from a lab in Wuhan fake news? Is the idea that the vaccines may have side effects worth understanding fake news? That is what was defined as fake news and actively censored in our very recent past. The problem with censoring fake news is that ultimately someone has to decide what is real and what is fake, and once censored, it becomes very difficult to discuss and revise that decision.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
  > Was the idea that COVID-19 leaked from a lab in Wuhan fake news? What facts was the assertion based on? I've always thought that while possible there wasn't supporting evidence.
  - largbae 2y ago
    That is a separate topic but recent congressional hearings would be a great way to research. The point that I am making is that both of these topics were censored as fake news, and neither is probably false.