The Personal Website of Mark W. Dawson

When Fact-Checkers Don't Understand Facts

Introduction

It is an unfortunate fact that in today’s world, we too often rely on fact-checkers to help determine the truth. But fact-checking is subjective rather than objective and susceptible to the "Logical Fallacies" and  "Cognitive Biases" of the fact-checkers and the predilections of the fact-checking organization. This results in improper labeling of asserted “facts” as true or false. Thus, determining facts is vulnerable to human interpretation of the facts as I have Chirped on, "10/15/21 Proper and Improper Facts". The biggest problems in the process of fact-checking are Narratives, and the determination of the facts of Statistics, Science, and Economics.

Narratives

In checking to determine if a “fact” is true or false, it is not possible for a fact checker to have all the knowledge and reasoning to determine the truth/falseness of the “fact”. They often rely on outside experts to make this determination. The problem is with the biases of the “experts” and which “experts” are consulted, and the reliance of the fact-checkers on the experts. Most “Experts” try to be objective, but what we have all forgotten is that experts can be, and often are, wrong. Wrong because they lack sufficient knowledge of all aspects of an issue, wrong because the facts they rely on are incorrect, wrong because they have an unrealistic belief in the accuracy of their statistics and modeling, and most importantly, they are wrong because they lack wisdom. And sometimes, the experts have hidden agendas for their expert opinions. They have these hidden agendas to accomplish what they believe to be good for Americans, but they believe Americans cannot fully understand the good they wish to achieve.

Or, as the editor of the Irish periodical “The Irish Homestead” wrote in 1910 about a piece of legislation that included the following:

“Our theory, which we have often put forward, is that experts ought to be on tap and not on top. We have had during our career a long and intimate knowledge of experts, most interesting men in their own speciality to which they have devoted themselves with great industry and zeal. But outside this special knowledge they are generally as foolish and ignorant as any person one could pick up in the street, with no broad knowledge of society or the general principles of legislation.”
 - George William Russell

There is also confusion about “Experts” and “Evidence” (i.e., “Facts”). An expert opinion is not evidence; it is the expert's opinion of the evidence, an opinion that is often debatable and disputed by other experts. The consensus of experts is not proof of the evidence, as consensus often changes as new evidence comes to light or previous evidence is discarded as incorrect or faulty.

Thus, fact-checkers are also often wrong, and I personally do not have much faith in their evaluations of the truth/falseness of the “fact”.

Statistics

Statistics and Studies abound in today’s world, and they are often used and misused to create public policies and laws. Even the best statisticians make mistakes or misinterpret statistics, as I have Chirped on "03/29/21 Probability and Statistics" and in my article on "Oh What A Tangled Web We Weave". Three good books that I have recommended are in my Book It on “05/01/20 Statistics and Studies”, which are readable and understandable by the general public, and which provide information that can be utilized to understand the proper uses of Statistics and Studies and to be wary and alert for the misuse of Statists and Studies.

The clearest example of the misuse of statistics is in a new article by John R. Lott Jr., James Varney, and Real Clear Investigations, “Murder, They Spun: Selective Stats Leave Suspicious Fingerprints All Over the Crime Debate”. Reading this article highlights some of the most egregious misuse of statistics in an important policy debate. When reviewing statistics, you should always remember the following:

"If you torture the data long enough, it will confess to anything."
  - from Darrell Huff's book "How to Lie With Statistics" (1954)

Fact-checkers often rely on statistics to determine the truth/falseness of the “fact”. But fact-checkers rarely have the knowledge and experience to properly analyze statistics. They often rely on “experts” that agree with their narrative; thus, they often come to the wrong conclusion as to the truth/falseness of the “fact”. Consequently, be very wary of any truth/falseness labeling that relies on statistics.

Science

Fact-checkers often rely on settled science and scientific consensus to determine the truth or falseness of “Facts”. Scientific consensus and settled science can lead you astray, as it has been wrong in the past and will continue to be wrong as new facts are obtained, and old facts are discarded as incorrect or faulty, as I have written in my article, “Scientific Consensus and Settled Science”. This is not to say that scientific consensus or settled science is unimportant. It is, in fact, very important. But it is only to say that consensus and settled science is not a determinative factor in science. All scientific consensuses should be open to critique based on new knowledge and better reasoning. All settled science needs to be reexamined in the light of new or changed knowledge.

Alas, in today’s world, science is often corrupted by partisan political considerations and funding issues, as I have written in my articles “Orthodoxy in Science” and “The Problems with Modern Science”. This has recently been seen in the scientific issues related to the COVID-19 Pandemic, as I have examined in a series of Chirps, “Coronavirus Pandemic Chirps”, and Transgenderism as I have Chirped on “06/18/23 Transgenderism”. This problem is so serious that Tucker Carlson has pointed out that the American medical establishment has “beclowned” itself through positions on “vaccines, psychiatric drugs, puberty blockers, reassignment surgeries, a long list of other politically factual priorities [which] have no connection whatsoever to legitimate science. It's all effectively witchcraft.”

These problems have also been rampant in fact-checking regarding the science of Climate Change, Environmental Science, and Renewable Energy. In my opinion, whenever Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders have an agenda that requires the support of science, the fact-checkers are predisposed to the supporting science as factual, while the dissident science is often labeled as falsehoods. Consequently, labeling scientific facts as truths or falsehoods is often incorrect, as the facts and truths of science are often scientifically disputed.

Economics

Economic facts are rarely factual and often fungible. They are often based on numbers that are statistically analyzed and have all the aforementioned problems with statistics. In addition, economists often segregate into schools of economic thought, where a school of economic thought is a group of economic thinkers who share a common perspective on the way economies work. It is common for each school of economists to disagree with the other schools and to dispute the facts and the statistics of each school.

Also, economic analysis is very complex, as there are many parts of the economy that have interchanges and feedback between the parts, which are difficult to predict. In addition, economic analysis is susceptible to the actions and reactions of the humans involved in the functioning of the economy to any changes in the economy, and such human actions and reactions are not predictable. Therefore, whenever anyone says “Economist Agree” or “The Consensus of Economists”, you can be sure that the person making the statement is economically illiterate. You can also be sure that any fact checker who labels the truth or falsehood of any economic “Fact” is also economically illiterate, as there is much disagreement amongst economists as to the facts and truths of economics.

Conclusions

Facts are difficult to determine, and facts can be interpreted in different ways. Facts and truth are essential, for without accurate facts and proper "Rationality" and "Reasoning", it is impossible to ascertain the truth. Without truth as a basis for political goals and policy agendas, much time, money, and effort will be expended on governmental efforts that are doomed to fail, as failure is what is inevitable if you do not base governmental decisions on truths.

In all of science, engineering, law, philosophy, theology, economics, statistics, and many other areas of human interactions, the Burden of Proof" is upon the person or persons who make the assertion, or as Christopher Hitchens's Philosophical Razor has stated, "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." The Burden of Proof" must be based upon "Reasoning" rather than emotions, for emotions will almost always lead to a false conclusion. If you do otherwise, you may fall into the trap of "if you cannot show their assertion is wrong, then their assertion must be right", which is obviously an untrue statement. You may also fall into the trap of trying to prove a negative, which is almost impossible to do. You should also remember that "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

If a fact checker makes an assertion of the truth or falsehood of the “Facts”, then they bear the Burden of Proof for their labeling. This Burden of Proof is often lacking or deficient in fact-checking, and, as such, their fact-checking can be dismissed without evidence.