Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 36 to 43 of 43

Thread: Fact checkers aren't very accurate

  1. #36
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Sequim, Washington
    Posts
    4,641

    Default Re: Fact checkers aren't very accurate

    Quote Originally Posted by twodot View Post
    Yeah, the word "elites" would have been red-penned by her thesis advisor as a vague term requiring elaboration, leading me to believe that the work was not vetted prior to appearing online.

    Googling a sentence from pieces such as this show the trail of which websites and blogs are using it.
    Perhaps it's from, Sanford not Stanford...you know, Elizabeth! I'm commin to ya honey!!

  2. #37
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Sharon, MA
    Posts
    16,648

    Default Re: Fact checkers aren't very accurate

    Hmmmm.... my earns were burning this AM, and now I know why

    My take on 'fact checking':

    There are really two parts to any fact-checking article. The first part is the search for facts... things that can readily be determined to be true or false, with absolute certainty. "I was not present at that meeting" can either be true, or false, but certainly not in between, and presuming there is incontrovertible evidence, the fact checker can say, with absolute certainly, that 'he' was either present at that meeting, or was not present at that meeting.

    Beyond incontrovertible facts, there is judgment. "I did not have sex with that women" is completely dependent on whether 'oral' constitutes 'sex' or not. Which side of the argument you stand on depends on 1) whether the claim meets with your clear understanding of the meaning of the term, and 2) what your prejudices and biases tell you.

    There have been times when I have disagreed with the conclusions of a fact-checking article... because the conclusion may judgment-based. Generally, however, I have not found much reason to disagree with most fact-checking articles. When Donald Trump says that the crowd at his inauguration was the largest such crowd ever, I know that this in incontrovertibly false (photographs of the crowds leave little doubt). When his minions later made the claim that the worldwide audience for his inauguration was the largest ever (presuming internet livestream participation), I don't have a basis to agree or disagree, because no incontrovertible evidence was presented to back up that claim... but my bias suggests that claim is false, as well.

    I guess my point is this: fact-checkers provide valuable and worthwhile information to those curious enough to want to inquire... but the valuable part is the clear and incontrovertible evidence. The 'judgment' part needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

    Not every fact-check article can be confirmed. For example, there was a recent news article claiming that Trump doesn't exercise because he believes that the body is 'like a battery', and exercising would waste his energy. The Snopes article on this calls it 'false'... but that judgment was about the 'battery' claim.... NOT on whether Trump ever said this, or not. The story comes from an unauthorized biography of the man, written by by Michael Kranish and Marc Fisher. It may be that Trump never said any such thing.
    "Fact is that which enough people believe. Truth is determined by how fervently they believe it."
    --- Charles Pierce







  3. #38
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Sharon, MA
    Posts
    16,648

    Default Re: Fact checkers aren't very accurate

    Incidentally, peb linked to a Politico article, preceding the link with the statement 'they are very biased'.

    The Politico article says nothing of the sort.
    "Fact is that which enough people believe. Truth is determined by how fervently they believe it."
    --- Charles Pierce







  4. #39
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    victoria, australia. (1 address now)
    Posts
    43,777

    Default Re: Fact checkers aren't very accurate

    Quote Originally Posted by Norman Bernstein View Post
    Incidentally, peb linked to a Politico article, preceding the link with the statement 'they are very biased'.

    The Politico article says nothing of the sort.
    Surely you don't expect facts in an article about fact checkers?

  5. #40
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    20,995

    Default Re: Fact checkers aren't very accurate

    Quote Originally Posted by Norman Bernstein View Post
    Hmmmm.... my earns were burning this AM, and now I know why

    My take on 'fact checking':

    There are really two parts to any fact-checking article. The first part is the search for facts... things that can readily be determined to be true or false, with absolute certainty. "I was not present at that meeting" can either be true, or false, but certainly not in between, and presuming there is incontrovertible evidence, the fact checker can say, with absolute certainly, that 'he' was either present at that meeting, or was not present at that meeting.

    Beyond incontrovertible facts, there is judgment. "I did not have sex with that women" is completely dependent on whether 'oral' constitutes 'sex' or not. Which side of the argument you stand on depends on 1) whether the claim meets with your clear understanding of the meaning of the term, and 2) what your prejudices and biases tell you.

    There have been times when I have disagreed with the conclusions of a fact-checking article... because the conclusion may judgment-based. Generally, however, I have not found much reason to disagree with most fact-checking articles. When Donald Trump says that the crowd at his inauguration was the largest such crowd ever, I know that this in incontrovertibly false (photographs of the crowds leave little doubt). When his minions later made the claim that the worldwide audience for his inauguration was the largest ever (presuming internet livestream participation), I don't have a basis to agree or disagree, because no incontrovertible evidence was presented to back up that claim... but my bias suggests that claim is false, as well.

    I guess my point is this: fact-checkers provide valuable and worthwhile information to those curious enough to want to inquire... but the valuable part is the clear and incontrovertible evidence. The 'judgment' part needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

    Not every fact-check article can be confirmed. For example, there was a recent news article claiming that Trump doesn't exercise because he believes that the body is 'like a battery', and exercising would waste his energy. The Snopes article on this calls it 'false'... but that judgment was about the 'battery' claim.... NOT on whether Trump ever said this, or not. The story comes from an unauthorized biography of the man, written by by Michael Kranish and Marc Fisher. It may be that Trump never said any such thing.
    Possibility #3 is what the relevant court has decided on whether 'oral' constitutes 'sex' or not.
    Rattling the teacups.

  6. #41
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    8,948

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by David G View Post
    Are you bored? Looking to waste time. I wish you wouldn't engage on that level.
    I'd say 50% of the political threads on this forum are trolls. I'm just honest about it. . I don't think your record is clean in that regard.

    Sent from my F3113 using Tapatalk

  7. #42
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    40,893

    Default Re: Fact checkers aren't very accurate

    Quote Originally Posted by peb View Post
    I'd say 50% of the political threads on this forum are trolls. I'm just honest about it. . I don't think your record is clean in that regard.

    Sent from my F3113 using Tapatalk
    Perhaps not 100% clean, it's true, when it comes to starting threads that are pure of any trollish content at all. But that's not a common modus for me. In fact, it's quite rare, no matter how some might interpret my contributions. I'd like to see us all avoid such behavior. But... as with my preference for keeping boat content abovedecks, I may well be in the minority.
    David G
    Harbor Woodworks
    http://www.harborwoodworking.com/boat.html

    "It was a Sunday morning and Goddard gave thanks that there were still places where one could worship in temples not made by human hands." -- L. F. Herreshoff (The Compleat Cruiser)

  8. #43
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    North West Arkansas
    Posts
    63,735

    Default Re: Fact checkers aren't very accurate

    you guys still excusing yourselves?
    The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.
    Personal failures are too important to be trusted to others.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •