Re: scientists are going to bluesky

On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 10:43:37 +0100
D <nospam@example.net> wrote:

 
 
On Thu, 28 Nov 2024, JAB wrote:
 

On Wed, 27 Nov 2024 10:27:45 +0100, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>

Examples of Fact-Checker Errors

>
One needs to consult with the professional fact-checkers...and
understand how fact-checking works.
>
>
That said, professional fact-checking organizations like Snopes,
Politifact, and FactCheck.org are extremely valuable (as are science
and skepticism websites that often play the role of fact-checker);
however, these sources are valuable not because they are
authoritative, but rather precisely because they are transparent and
cite their sources. I'd never suggest that someone should blindly
believe a source like Snopes, but the break-down of why and how they
came to their conclusion and what sources they used is incredibly
useful. You don't have to blindly believe fact-checkers because you
can look at their sources and verify what they are saying! You can
also cross-check multiple fact-checkers to see if they are in
agreement or if one has uncovered information that the others missed.
>
https://thelogicofscience.com/2024/04/25/yes-you-should-fact-check/

 
That's nonsense. Fact checkers are human, and being represented as the
judges of what is fact or not, gives them enormous power, and enormous
potential for corruptability.
 
I have shown you several cases where they have been wrong. Then, on top of
that, a lot of polarizing discource is about values, and by definition,
there can be no "fact" there, which is always forgotten.
 
That is when fact checkers tend to stop becoming fact checkers, and become
political players.
 
 

'Facts are bad, and I don't like them if they disagree with my position.'

Post-truth.

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.