I've been unimpressed with politifact more than once before, myself. "Confronta
I enjoy imagining pop-up "Truth 2.0" windows, but that's impossible. I was about to merely say it's impractical because it's beyond the skill set of programmers, but that would be unfair to computer programmers because it ignores the fact that the required mathematical theory does not even exist!
http://www
That page doesn't make it perfectly clear, but the pairing problem is just one example. The $1,000,000 prize is offered for something much more general, more abstract: a mathematical proof linking proofs that problems CAN be solved (already known for many problems) to definitions of SPECIFIC ALGORITHMS for solving each problem, which would include rigorously defined truth, which we all know exists, but disagree on how to PURSUE.
Pop-up windows on claims, each researched by an army of interns, is pretty much just politifact's method, unless you can define a Truth-Seeker Algorithm, and then you might as well program that algorithm.
Without a mathematical proof telling us how to program Truth 2.0, we're stuck with human biases, with verification being an art, not a science. So I prefer teaching more people the art of academic and journalistic standards of verification than to find a way to mass produce and commodify it. It's probably better for us than outsourcing how we decide what to believe, anyway.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
No comments:
Post a Comment