Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Political Fact-Checking

Page 1 of 1 [ 15 posts ] 

Previous topic | Next topic

Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

21 Feb 2021, 7:26 pm

Quote:
Sites like PolitiFact and Factcheck.org are designed to verify political claims and hold politicians accountable. But critics say fact-checking entities are themselves biased.

https://www.npr.org/2012/01/10/14497411 ... under-fire



Last edited by Pepe on 21 Feb 2021, 7:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

21 Feb 2021, 7:35 pm

Quote:
These fact-finders all help to arrive at the truth. But we believe that confirming accuracy through multiple sources and original reporting is the best guarantee. And as Emery says:

“In the thorny search for truth, there’s no substitute for doing one’s own research and applying one’s own considered judgment before thinking oneself informed.”

https://www.jacksonville.com/article/20 ... /801246493



techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,592
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi

21 Feb 2021, 8:34 pm

I'm really hoping for Daniel Schmachtenberger et al's Consilience Project to start up soon. It looks like they had earmarked Q1 2021 for their first articles. Their goal is to build a not for profit media agency, to run for five years, authors not named on the articles, and prototype a way of handling news where all countervailing biases across different stories on a topic are shared (at least within the error bars), where analytical tools and heuristics used in analyzing data for an article are directly shared, and where readers are encouraged to contribute corrections and/or additional information and expertise if the find anything missing.


_________________
The loneliest part of life: it's not just that no one is on your cloud, few can even see your cloud.


Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

21 Feb 2021, 9:58 pm

techstepgenr8tion wrote:
I'm really hoping for Daniel Schmachtenberger et al's Consilience Project to start up soon. It looks like they had earmarked Q1 2021 for their first articles. Their goal is to build a not for profit media agency, to run for five years, authors not named on the articles, and prototype a way of handling news where all countervailing biases across different stories on a topic are shared (at least within the error bars), where analytical tools and heuristics used in analyzing data for an article are directly shared, and where readers are encouraged to contribute corrections and/or additional information and expertise if the find anything missing.


A Wikipedia sort of thing. 8)



techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,592
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi

21 Feb 2021, 10:06 pm

Pepe wrote:
A Wikipedia sort of thing. 8)

In part.


_________________
The loneliest part of life: it's not just that no one is on your cloud, few can even see your cloud.


Fixxer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Mar 2021
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,511

07 Mar 2021, 5:36 pm

I would consider all of Google, Facebook, YouTube "fact-checkers", to be paid grossly by businesses and governments, to destroy anything that could hamper their crooked ability to make more money through deception.



funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 40
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,533
Location: Right over your left shoulder

07 Mar 2021, 5:47 pm

Which critics? Don't those critics also have their own biases?



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

08 Mar 2021, 3:33 am

Fixxer wrote:
I would consider all of Google, Facebook, YouTube "fact-checkers", to be paid grossly by businesses and governments, to destroy anything that could hamper their crooked ability to make more money through deception.


I don't trust big business.
I hate big business. 8)



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,939
Location:      

08 Mar 2021, 9:31 am

It is worthy of note that those most opposed to organizations like Politifact and Snopes are usually the same ones who garner attention for spreading falsehoods and harassing those who seek the truth.



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

09 Mar 2021, 6:52 pm

Fnord wrote:
It is worthy of note that those most opposed to organizations like Politifact and Snopes are usually the same ones who garner attention for spreading falsehoods and harassing those who seek the truth.


The best defence against 'fake news' is to maintain a skeptical mindset, don't jump to conclusions and engage in critical thinking skills.



binstein
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2021
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 134

09 Mar 2021, 8:14 pm

Pepe wrote:
Quote:
“In the thorny search for truth, there’s no substitute for doing one’s own research and applying one’s own considered judgment before thinking oneself informed.”

That's problematic because one doing "one's own research" can be anybody, a conspiracy theorist, a ufologist a supernatural enthusiast, whoever. The research methodology should be the correct one, "one’s own considered judgment" Again, the judgement of a conspiracy theorist.......

I would say the best substitute to that would be consensus.



shlaifu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 May 2014
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,659

09 Mar 2021, 9:17 pm

binstein wrote:
Pepe wrote:
Quote:
“In the thorny search for truth, there’s no substitute for doing one’s own research and applying one’s own considered judgment before thinking oneself informed.”

That's problematic because one doing "one's own research" can be anybody, a conspiracy theorist, a ufologist a supernatural enthusiast, whoever. The research methodology should be the correct one, "one’s own considered judgment" Again, the judgement of a conspiracy theorist.......

I would say the best substitute to that would be consensus.


True. Also: there's so many things I should be "researching" that are simply beyond my abilities. I'm not a fraud onvestigator, not a medical researcher, not a physicist. I don't have the knowledge to gather and evaluate data in these fields. I trust that the respective institutiond are doing this for me. In return, they don't have to do my work and can trust me and my colleagues who evaluate my work.
It's not a system that's corruption-proof, but it's the only system that allows us to cope with the immense amount of data produced in each field.
Because googling is not research.
However, if you already distrust the institutions outside of your own (if you even are part of one), then "doing your own research" is not likely to help you, but rather makes things worse.


_________________
I can read facial expressions. I did the test.


Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

09 Mar 2021, 10:05 pm

binstein wrote:
Pepe wrote:
Quote:
“In the thorny search for truth, there’s no substitute for doing one’s own research and applying one’s own considered judgment before thinking oneself informed.”

That's problematic because one doing "one's own research" can be anybody, a conspiracy theorist, a ufologist a supernatural enthusiast, whoever. The research methodology should be the correct one, "one’s own considered judgment" Again, the judgement of a conspiracy theorist.......

I would say the best substitute to that would be consensus.


Use your own experience.
Use your own reasoning skills.
Go to multiple sources.
Refer to trusted information sources to compare opinions.



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

09 Mar 2021, 10:10 pm

shlaifu wrote:
binstein wrote:
Pepe wrote:
Quote:
“In the thorny search for truth, there’s no substitute for doing one’s own research and applying one’s own considered judgment before thinking oneself informed.”

That's problematic because one doing "one's own research" can be anybody, a conspiracy theorist, a ufologist a supernatural enthusiast, whoever. The research methodology should be the correct one, "one’s own considered judgment" Again, the judgement of a conspiracy theorist.......

I would say the best substitute to that would be consensus.


True. Also: there's so many things I should be "researching" that are simply beyond my abilities. I'm not a fraud onvestigator, not a medical researcher, not a physicist. I don't have the knowledge to gather and evaluate data in these fields. I trust that the respective institutiond are doing this for me. In return, they don't have to do my work and can trust me and my colleagues who evaluate my work.
It's not a system that's corruption-proof, but it's the only system that allows us to cope with the immense amount of data produced in each field.
Because googling is not research.
However, if you already distrust the institutions outside of your own (if you even are part of one), then "doing your own research" is not likely to help you, but rather makes things worse.


Perhaps for you, but not for me.
I have a lot more life experience than you do, which *does* help in some ways.

Also, I am very honest with myself and will acknowledge when I am out of my league.
We aren't talking about rocket trajectory, etc, are we?
I wasn't. 8)



Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,998
Location: Melbourne, Australia

10 Mar 2021, 10:23 pm