I've stopped reading all those "fact check" web sites. They seem to be literalists who can't hear the actual meaning of things being said. Everything is just about measurements while ignoring reality. (Now that I think about it, that is also a common problem to technical people too. Failing to recognize the shortcomings of data and measurements.)
>They seem to be literalists who can't hear the actual meaning of things being said. Everything is just about measurements while ignoring reality.
"Facts" are about literal, objective, measurable reality. If it depends on a subjective interpretation and reading between the lines, then it isn't a fact.
Howard Zinn pointed out that History is always biased. In my own work, I've noticed that Machine Learning is always biased. Basically, any historian picks out which facts to discuss, and is not immune from social pressures when they interpret those facts. Similarly, after running enough machine learning algorithms, I realized that the features measured, the way they are measured, and their relationship to other features is considered "factual raw data" - yet it is the very essence of subjective while often ignoring the greater and more important reality.
>"Facts" are about literal, objective, measurable reality. If it depends on a subjective interpretation and reading between the lines, then it isn't a fact.
In physics, chemistry, math, etc. facts are the order of the day, yes.
But raw facts are few and far between in human affairs and even less so in politics.
When people say something in non-hard-science domains, it more often than not depends on a "subjective interpretation", and depending on their phrasing, hidden motives, and eloquence might also need some "reading between the lines" or some charitable interpretation.
Nerds applying Vulcan-style logic to such claims just confuse matters more.
>Nerds applying Vulcan-style logic to such claims just confuse matters more.
I don't see Snopes doing that, though. I see them making an argument based on evidence and (in the specific case related the linked article) not even making an absolute claim about it at the end.
The people applying "Vulcan-style logic" are those who dismiss sites like Snopes out of hand as being politically biased, or propagandist, and therefore entirely useless.
