Re: scientists are going to bluesky

On Fri, 29 Nov 2024, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:

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.
>

"Facts are facts, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah" post-post-truth!