6 ms·

Data isn't the ultimate fact check - it's just numbers waiting to be twisted. Bias, bad sources, and cherry-picking turn 'facts' into fiction. Real fact-checkin

Data isn't the ultimate fact check - it's just numbers waiting to be twisted. Bias, bad sources, and cherry-picking turn 'facts' into fiction. Real fact-checking needs brains, not just bar graphs.

arunabha 2y ago
But surely, the answer to 'data can be twisted' is not to remove the data? We have enough of a problem already with wilful misinformation. Having the data is the first step towards a reasonable discussion. Otherwise, you have to resort to 'I feel ....' vs 'Based on this interpretation....' I agree that the first kind of debate is already the dominant form today, however I think we can all agree that it's not been good for society overall.
- _heimdall 2y ago
  This isn't a new problem unfortunately. Data and research during the pandemic response was being horribly mishandled, largely by the Democrats at the time. This isn't a one party or one person problem. It sure seems like a problem more correlated with our government structure and/or climate, or authority structures themselves.
  - marxisttemp 2y ago
    I’m sorry, I’m no fan of the dems but if you think Trump isn’t above and beyond when it comes to lying and twisting truth you’re either a shill or just ignorant
    - _heimdall 2y ago
      Oh he is bad about it, don't get me wrong. That doesn't excuse other politicians though, and attempting to weigh and compare the relative lying and truth twisting seems like an extremely difficult thing to do. Bush Jr blatantly lied to the country and rallied us around a war that killed hundreds of thousands of people minimum. How do we weigh that with Trumps ridiculous lies?
  - lucb1e 2y ago
    There not being another pandemic during the information age to compare with, it's hard to say whether The Democrats mishandled it or not. Perhaps one could look at aspects where there was consensus within at least one of the opposing parties about what should happen (before the outcome of any path could be known) and compare that against hindsight. If you have specific examples where others clearly knew better than the ruling party, that would be relevant to consider if it's chance or a pattern, but otherwise it feels like the age-old opposing of the current ruling force
  - hackyhacky 2y ago
    > largely by the Democrats at the time. Who was president in 2020?
    - _heimdall 2y ago
      Was the pandemic limited to 2020?
      - hackyhacky 2y ago
        Nope, it was not. But 2020 is when it was first addressed by the US federal government (through various means including the CARES Act), and the US federal government was run by one Donald Trump. So it seems disingenuous of you to place the blame specifically on Democrats without citing what the Democrats did wrong but Donald Trump did right.
vasco 2y ago
So one of the most important things to "fact check" in this election for me was the clear elder abuse of someone with advanced dementia. How do you fact check that? Because almost everyone has a grandparent and has seen what it looks like. When push comes to shove and you lie about something everyone can see and has such a visceral reaction to, it's hard to move past it. And even seeing clear as day for months it kept being denied. If you can't solve for that, there's no point.
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  Meanwhile Biden has one bad day and everyone's saying "he's too old". While voting in the oldest president in history months later. You can fact check it. No one wants to for whatever reason.
darth_avocado 2y ago
> Data isn’t the ultimate fact check But it is. Numbers can be twisted, but it they can easily be verified. Bias, bad sources and cherry picking can allow you to tell stories, but the data will allow you to verify those stories are indeed facts. Brain can’t really fact check things that don’t have any data.
- tombert 2y ago
  I'm not sure I agree. Even if the numbers are accurate, nearly any situation has a nearly infinite number of potential data points, and deciding which ones are relevant isn't as straightforward as people act like it is. This is easy to see play out; you can look at the same stories being reported on both Fox News and MSNBC. Usually both sources' raw facts will be basically "correct" in the sense that they're not saying anything explicitly false, but there can be bias in determining which facts are actually useful or how they're categorized. You can see how the reporting of the January 6th stuff varied between news outlets.
- listenallyall 2y ago
  Can data, or AI, tell me definitively who the MVP of the NFL was this season? Allen, Lamar, Saquon? The numbers certainly help when making comparisons, but they aren't the entire story, different people will come to different conclusions based on the exact same set of facts.
  - esperent 2y ago
    Who cares about the NFL? The issue here is that, and mark my words this almost this exact conversation will play out in the very near future: Scientists: X number of people died of Covid in the US according to CDC data. US Government: you can't prove that number. That data doesn't exist on government servers, the data in the copies is fake and can't be trusted.
    - listenallyall 2y ago
      > Who cares about the NFL? It's a simple example, that's why it's relevant. All the facts are available for anyone to see, to process, to analyze. There is no disputed or hidden data. And yet nobody, including any AI, can produce a "true" answer to the question, because it's reliant on one's personal biases. Even with Covid, did a 92-year old die because of Covid, or because of a multitude of existing conditions that Covid triggered? Probably impossible to know medically, and AI isn't going to tell you definitively one way or the other.

Data isn't the ultimate fact check - it's just numbers waiting to be twisted. Bias, bad sources, and cherry-picking turn 'facts' into fiction. Real fact-checking needs brains, not just bar graphs.

arunabha 2y ago

But surely, the answer to 'data can be twisted' is not to remove the data? We have enough of a problem already with wilful misinformation. Having the data is the first step towards a reasonable discussion. Otherwise, you have to resort to 'I feel ....' vs 'Based on this interpretation....' I agree that the first kind of debate is already the dominant form today, however I think we can all agree that it's not been good for society overall.

_heimdall 2y ago
This isn't a new problem unfortunately. Data and research during the pandemic response was being horribly mishandled, largely by the Democrats at the time. This isn't a one party or one person problem. It sure seems like a problem more correlated with our government structure and/or climate, or authority structures themselves.
- marxisttemp 2y ago
  I’m sorry, I’m no fan of the dems but if you think Trump isn’t above and beyond when it comes to lying and twisting truth you’re either a shill or just ignorant
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    Oh he is bad about it, don't get me wrong. That doesn't excuse other politicians though, and attempting to weigh and compare the relative lying and truth twisting seems like an extremely difficult thing to do. Bush Jr blatantly lied to the country and rallied us around a war that killed hundreds of thousands of people minimum. How do we weigh that with Trumps ridiculous lies?
- lucb1e 2y ago
  There not being another pandemic during the information age to compare with, it's hard to say whether The Democrats mishandled it or not. Perhaps one could look at aspects where there was consensus within at least one of the opposing parties about what should happen (before the outcome of any path could be known) and compare that against hindsight. If you have specific examples where others clearly knew better than the ruling party, that would be relevant to consider if it's chance or a pattern, but otherwise it feels like the age-old opposing of the current ruling force
- hackyhacky 2y ago
  > largely by the Democrats at the time. Who was president in 2020?
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    Was the pandemic limited to 2020?
    - hackyhacky 2y ago
      Nope, it was not. But 2020 is when it was first addressed by the US federal government (through various means including the CARES Act), and the US federal government was run by one Donald Trump. So it seems disingenuous of you to place the blame specifically on Democrats without citing what the Democrats did wrong but Donald Trump did right.

vasco 2y ago

So one of the most important things to "fact check" in this election for me was the clear elder abuse of someone with advanced dementia. How do you fact check that? Because almost everyone has a grandparent and has seen what it looks like. When push comes to shove and you lie about something everyone can see and has such a visceral reaction to, it's hard to move past it. And even seeing clear as day for months it kept being denied. If you can't solve for that, there's no point.

johnnyanmac 2y ago
Meanwhile Biden has one bad day and everyone's saying "he's too old". While voting in the oldest president in history months later. You can fact check it. No one wants to for whatever reason.

darth_avocado 2y ago

> Data isn’t the ultimate fact check But it is. Numbers can be twisted, but it they can easily be verified. Bias, bad sources and cherry picking can allow you to tell stories, but the data will allow you to verify those stories are indeed facts. Brain can’t really fact check things that don’t have any data.

tombert 2y ago
I'm not sure I agree. Even if the numbers are accurate, nearly any situation has a nearly infinite number of potential data points, and deciding which ones are relevant isn't as straightforward as people act like it is. This is easy to see play out; you can look at the same stories being reported on both Fox News and MSNBC. Usually both sources' raw facts will be basically "correct" in the sense that they're not saying anything explicitly false, but there can be bias in determining which facts are actually useful or how they're categorized. You can see how the reporting of the January 6th stuff varied between news outlets.
listenallyall 2y ago
Can data, or AI, tell me definitively who the MVP of the NFL was this season? Allen, Lamar, Saquon? The numbers certainly help when making comparisons, but they aren't the entire story, different people will come to different conclusions based on the exact same set of facts.
- esperent 2y ago
  Who cares about the NFL? The issue here is that, and mark my words this almost this exact conversation will play out in the very near future: Scientists: X number of people died of Covid in the US according to CDC data. US Government: you can't prove that number. That data doesn't exist on government servers, the data in the copies is fake and can't be trusted.
  - listenallyall 2y ago
    > Who cares about the NFL? It's a simple example, that's why it's relevant. All the facts are available for anyone to see, to process, to analyze. There is no disputed or hidden data. And yet nobody, including any AI, can produce a "true" answer to the question, because it's reliant on one's personal biases. Even with Covid, did a 92-year old die because of Covid, or because of a multitude of existing conditions that Covid triggered? Probably impossible to know medically, and AI isn't going to tell you definitively one way or the other.