Insights Fake News and Science Reporting - Comments

[stevendaryl]

Skeptical doesn't mean you don't believe anything. It just means you don't believe anything without evidence and good argument.

The question is: What counts as a good argument?

The bolder the claim, the higher the demand should be on the reasoning and evidence. If the story says "man hit by car walking down the street" I think this is fairly plausible and I'm not going to run to the named intersection looking for the blood stains. If the article says "man stumbles into a black hole created by grad students in university parking lot" then I'm going to be doing some fact checking. (Actually I wouldn't believe that at all, but I'm exaggerating a bit!)

Yes, but the notion of what's plausible and what's not depends on a background of knowledge. If people don't share that background, then they will have different notions of what's plausible. Some stories, such as the possibility of getting hit by a car, presumably we have personal experience that tells us that it is plausible. But if you go beyond things that you have direct experience with, you have to rely on indirect knowledge to tell you what's plausible.

Also cynicism is not the same as skepticism. Cynicism (in its modern usage) typically involves a negative spin. "Man donates $50,000 to charity" becomes "Big deal, he probably has billions so it's no big deal to him."

Yes, there is a difference, but they both contribute to doubt in similar ways. (If you're cynical about the honesty or motivations of the reporter, or the researcher, then you are more likely to be skeptical about his claims.)

 

[stevendaryl]

BTW, when it comes to medical stuff, i find that I'm able to develop an opinion by reading a few studies about effectiveness, despite the fact that I don't have a medical background. Again, a small amount of quantitative literacy comes into play here. Was it tested? Was there a control group? Peer reviewed? Double blind? How big was the sample? I don't need to know the mechanics of the drug.. just "is there some probability this will work, and does it outweigh the potential complications?"

I guess, without being an expert, you can see warning signs about a claim's believability, if you read the original sources. But for a lot of claims that are made routinely, the original sources are hard or impossible to come by.

 

[dkotschessaa]

The question is: What counts as a good argument?

One that is sound and valid. One that does not contain logical fallacies.

Yes, but the notion of what's plausible and what's not depends on a background of knowledge. If people don't share that background, then they will have different notions of what's plausible. Some stories, such as the possibility of getting hit by a car, presumably we have personal experience that tells us that it is plausible. But if you go beyond things that you have direct experience with, you have to rely on indirect knowledge to tell you what's plausible.

If you know what makes a valid argument, you can still see whether an argument is valid whether or not you know the field. What you can't always test is soundness. In this case, you may need to defer to an expert, in which case it is best to check their motivations, background, consensus, etc. But the less you know, the more important it is to continue to be skeptical and defer judgement. True skepticism requires an extremely open mind, because you continue to defer judgement until you believe you have enough information to take a position.

Yes, there is a difference, but they both contribute to doubt in similar ways. (If you're cynical about the honesty or motivations of the reporter, or the researcher, then you are more likely to be skeptical about his claims.)

OK. I do think cynicism is more global. Basically if you're a cynic, you believe that everybody is motivated by self interest and greed. (The case can be made that this is true, but I think cynicism is even more extreme). So yes, this would make you skeptical. But there are ways to motivate skepticism that are not based in a cynical view of the world.

-Dave K

 

[dkotschessaa]

I guess, without being an expert, you can see warning signs about a claim's believability, if you read the original sources. But for a lot of claims that are made routinely, the original sources are hard or impossible to come by.

Yes, it's kind of not fair, but for the last 6 years I've had access to JSTOR through my university. When our premature baby was in the hospital for 3 months, I would consult it whenever the doctors would recommend some course of action. Not everybody does that? LOL

But lack of access to information is a big problem right now, especially when it comes to scientific knowledge. There is a lot of ruckus being raised at the present time.

-Dave K

 

[dkotschessaa]

I don't seek to stay informed except in the particular things I'm personally interested in like real life real time matters like 'is it so quiet because it's a public holiday' or 'what was that noise', why is there no '?' available' and so on.

I live in a relatively quiet little town outback. Whatever things I get informed in are a result of people mentioning them in conversations. The beauty out here is that if it's not the weather or the state of farming there is generally little else talked about. I have one friend (who knows I don't want to be informed) who has sometimes great difficulty not informing me but generally manages.

For science news I find this forum enough.

I actually totally sympathize with this viewpoint, because I think most news is basically garbage and noise and doesn't affect our lives in anyway. I'm trying to find a more middle ground than what you have done though. I'm thinking that if we've forgotten about the story in a week or a month, then it probably was just hype, so I'd prefer to just recap at those intervals. It's just so hard to get away from though.

-Dave K

 

[dkotschessaa]

BTW, I want to come back to the original article and relate something I did when I was president of the math club at my University. This could easily be extended to other fields. (probably more easily than math).

The students (mostly undergrads) weren't at a point where they could give talks about research and whatnot. So I did a project called "math in the media." I had them pick a math related news story (it didn't have to be super recent) and asked them (via a form) to answer the following questions:

What is the title of the News Article?
What is the main idea of the news article?
What is the title of the original paper the news article was based off of?
What type of math was used in the article?
Do you feel the newspaper article and the original research communicated the same idea?

I had them just give like 10-15 minute talks during our math club meetings. So one meeting would be 3 or 4 students. It was really cool. The really fun part, especially in physics I think, is the comparison of the news title to the original paper.

-Dave K

 

[gmax137]

What was reporting has morphed into "journalism" which succeeds by providing exposés rather than simple facts. At one time, a typical article in the local paper might have been, "Joe Smith suffered minor injuries in an accident when struck by a city bus at the intersection of 1st and Poplar..." Now, it's more likely "Councilman Peters declined comment on his ongoing opposition to installing a flashing light at the intersection of 1st and Poplar. Peters, also president of Peters Concrete, has opposed anything that would slow traffic on 1st street..."

Why the change? Obviously a story about corrupt politicians gains more interest than a run-of-the-mill fender bender.

 

[mheslep]

What was reporting has morphed into propaganda in many outlets. I think they why is an embrace of power, enabled by arrogance. Power is now obtained by the sensational, and power then enables the age old utopian notion that "It is I that will save the world", a better cover for power than arrogance. Outlets that frown on personalities are much better at reporting. See e.g. CSPAN, where hardly anyone knows the on air reporters.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

One of the things we've done for students we mentor is have them author and/or edit several Wikipedia articles related to their research topics. The Wikipedia verifiability and reliable source guidelines are pretty good, and by the time students have learned to comply and written a few articles, they have learned much more than most high school and college students about distinguishing between sources and spotting the fakes when something seems off. A bonus is when a Wikipedia editor runs afoul of their standards, someone comes along and points it out, so the teacher/mentor does not have to be constantly policing and correcting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources

 

[mfb]

Related:
How to fake news and push them on reddit
Corresponding reddit thread

 

[rbelli1]

There are several different things that are called "Fake News"

One is sources like The Onion and The Enquirer which are fiction. These occasionally get reported as actual fact when they are a fiction type entertainment. I don't believe anything that comes out of those publications any more than I wonder why there is no crater in place of the White House even I saw it destroyed in the movie Independence Day.

A second class of "Fake News" is as discussed in the insights article. Take some true statement or evidence and either following it to a possible future conclusion as in the article or fill in any missing information with whatever you want. The latter happens all the time when a public figure or agency declines to answer a question. Not answering proves that any statement on the subject not directly contradicted by available evidence must be true. Even if it completely boggles the mind. I was originally tempted to give some examples but that would only encourage the perpetrators. This class of misinformation is more an invalid conclusion rather than a Fake News.

Increasingly I am seeing people call anything they disagree with "Fake News". As in "The Onion (Enquirer, etc.) reported [insert news like comedy sketch here] therefore [unrelated news item] is wrong because "FAKE NEWZES!". Or [highly polarized talking head] said [inflammatory opinion statement] therefore anything in the ballpark of their political/social affiliation is wrong because "FAKE NEWZES!" This argument is essentially made up news like entertainment exists therefore we can't believe any news ever. Or someone was wrong once therefore don't believe anything they or any even remotely like minded person says ever.

BoB

 

[ZapperZ]

There are several different things that are called "Fake News"

One is sources like The Onion and The Enquirer which are fiction. These occasionally get reported as actual fact when they are a fiction type entertainment. I don't believe anything that comes out of those publications any more than I wonder why there is no crater in place of the White House even I saw it destroyed in the movie Independence Day.

I don't see The Onion and the Enquirer being the same thing, even though one may consider both sources as "fictions". The Onion doesn't take itself seriously, and freely admits to being a parody. The Enquirer THINKS itself as "serious news". So one can easily compare The Onion as being the Alan Sokal's infamous hoax (its creator knows it isn't true), while The Enquirer as a crackpot (its creator seriously thinks he/she is producing seriously legitimate work... seriously!).

Zz.

 

[Evo]

One is sources like The Onion and The Enquirer which are fiction.

No, The Onion is satire, it is not news and does not pretend to be news, The Enquirer pretends to be news.

 

[Vanadium 50]

The Enquirer THINKS itself as "serious news".

It really doesn't. I've talked to a former Enquirer staffer, and nobody believes Bigfoot is Elvis' love child. Or the reverse. However, everything they print has to be sourced. The paper has to be able to point to something for every article and say "Here's where we got it from." And, as you might imagine, they don't look too carefully at the quality of these sources - where's the profit in that?

 

[Evo]

It really doesn't. I've talked to a former Enquirer staffer, and nobody believes Bigfoot is Elvis' love child. Or the reverse. However, everything they print has to be sourced. The paper has to be able to point to something for every article and say "Here's where we got it from." And, as you might imagine, they don't look too carefully at the quality of these sources - where's the profit in that?

Well, it's a tabloid. Sensationalist, but not intentionally comic or satire. That's why it's not an allowable source.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I agree it shouldn't be allowable. I was just commenting that the creators usually don't think it's real. ("Hillary Clinton Adopts Alien Baby" didn't happen). They did break the John Edwards/Rielle Hunter story, although I am not sure they thought it was real at the time either.

 

[collinsmark]

I agree it shouldn't be allowable. I was just commenting that the creators usually don't think it's real. ("Hillary Clinton Adopts Alien Baby" didn't happen). They did break the John Edwards/Rielle Hunter story, although I am not sure they thought it was real at the time either.

Is that really a National Enquirer story? It sounds more like something coming from the Weekly World News (which is arguably satire).

Here are some headlines in National Enquirer online version, as of today:

TAYLOR SWIFT SHUNS JESSICA SIMPSON

MEGHAN MARKLE NUDE -- PRINCE HARRY'S NEW ROYAL SCANDAL

MUHAMMAD ALI: FBI FILES REVEAL REPORT OF FIXED FIGHT​

Sensationalistic garbage, but I wouldn't call it satire. Satire is supposed to be funny. These are just mindless slops of gossip.

 

[FactChecker]

It is not practical to become an expert and research the sources of everything we need to know. One has to trust certain sources of information without checking each one. I tend to trust professional people and scientists who are not political. Once that decision is made, I am largely at the mercy of those sources. Alternatively, not trusting those people leaves one either responsible for researching every fact individually or routinely trusting politicians, religious leaders, and friends.
PS. Regarding the first example of the unemployment rate, there are 6 numbers, U1, U2, ..., U6, published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. U3 is the standard one, but U6 is much more inclusive (includes discouraged people who have stopped looking but want a job). They are all valid sources for what they measure. Although those numbers vary greatly from each other (currently from U1=1.8% to U6=9.3%), they all show similar consistent trends.

 

[Rx7man]

Ohhh... Sooo much to say

To start with, after the marathon of primaries and then the election, I'm TIRED.. I'm SICK and TIRED of being FORCED to check every single 'fact'. I have a pretty good BS detector.. so perhaps I'm actually a skeptic, or worse, a cynic.. How far do I have to dig to find the sources?.. I know it's not infallible, but Snopes is usually a good start.
Example: On my facebook someone was warning of people picking up your keyfob clicks when you lock your car and they'd unlock it when you turned your back and steal you blind.
Right away red flags went up.. I also know that consumer encryption systems are not infallible.. So a quick check on snopes said it has been done.. but on OLD cars from the 1980's.. I'm certain it's POSSIBLE to crack keyfob codes, but the computing power to do it is probably not going to be on a laptop in the next car, and not in the time it takes for you to pay for your gas.
I posted the snopes link and right away someone has to pipe up "But snopes isn't always right".. sigh..

On a different level, How do you verify what Wikileaks posts? I lost a little faith in them in the last few months by being evidently partisan... and honestly, how can you prove or disprove any of their releases? Sounds a lot like you just got to take their word for it that the leaked emails were actually ever written! I'm not a person who puts a lot of trust in any government, so I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place... I can't with certainly believe anything either side says, just have to look at both of them as 'plausible'.

@dkotschessaa Good links on the logical fallacies.. though some of the examples I think are flawed... The one that struck me is The inevitable result of handgun control is the government seizure of all guns". A better example would be "The inevitable result of handgun control is the government seizure of all vehicles". Yes, Guns kill.. it's what they're designed to do, whether they're handguns or any other, so it would follow that controlling one will lead to the control of the other.. However, vehicles are equally capable of killing people, but they have other uses and killing isn't what they're designed for... Sooo.. a logical fallacy in the logical fallacy article :P

I had more points I wanted to talk about but it's getting late

 

[dkotschessaa]

@dkotschessaa Good links on the logical fallacies.. though some of the examples I think are flawed... The one that struck me is The inevitable result of handgun control is the government seizure of all guns". A better example would be "The inevitable result of handgun control is the government seizure of all vehicles". Yes, Guns kill.. it's what they're designed to do, whether they're handguns or any other, so it would follow that controlling one will lead to the control of the other.. However, vehicles are equally capable of killing people, but they have other uses and killing isn't what they're designed for... Sooo.. a logical fallacy in the logical fallacy article :P

I had more points I wanted to talk about but it's getting late

It's supposed to be an example of what a slippery slope fallacy would look like, so I think it's fine as it stands. It's certainly the kind of thing people say.

Your counterexample would serve another purpose. It's an example of a slippery slope fallacy stretched to absurdity, so I would use it as a counter argument. So if someone says "The inevitable result of handgun control is the government seizure of all guns". You could respond "That's like saying 'The inevitable result of handgun control is the government seizure of all vehicles." and show how their reasoning leads to an absurdity. (Kind of like a proof by contradiction..sorta).

We might be veering off into another topic though.

-Dave K

 

[Vanadium 50]

On a different level, How do you verify what Wikileaks posts?

Has anyone even claimed what has been posted about them is untrue?

 

[Rx7man]

Has anyone even claimed what has been posted about them is untrue?

#1 google hit for "False wikileaks claims" is this http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...inton-wikileaks-emails-doctored-or-are-they-/
So yep, Tim Kaine questions it...

Result #5.. though I don't think Heavy.com is an authoritative source, it seems well written
http://heavy.com/news/2016/10/is-wi...e-podesta-emails-russian-hackers-trump-putin/

 

[dkotschessaa]

#1 google hit for "False wikileaks claims" is this http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...inton-wikileaks-emails-doctored-or-are-they-/
So yep, Tim Kaine questions it...

Result #5.. though I don't think Heavy.com is an authoritative source, it seems well written
http://heavy.com/news/2016/10/is-wi...e-podesta-emails-russian-hackers-trump-putin/

Wikileaks is a tough one for me. It seems to influence a lot of opinions, but it is at the same time is a kind of "inadmissible evidence." It's also a secondhand source of information, so it begs the question whether the original source is even valid.

-Dave K

 

[Kevin McHugh]

How do you stay informed?

Greg, I'm a news junkie, so I can appreciate what John101 said. I read all the news sites, CNN, Vox, HuffPo, Brietbart, Drudge, Fox, Townhall, American Thinker, etc. They all pretty much stink with regard to unbias (i.e. very good at bias). As I get older, I'm finding myself in John's camp. Staying informed only elevates the blood pressure, because of the foolishness on both sides. I have no inclination to become an activist for change Much of the foolishness doesn't affect me personally, so why get all out of sorts over it? I can only control how I react to it. In the large scheme of things, I can't say I see any value in "staying informed."

Regards, Kevin

 

[Rx7man]

Davek, Yes, it is hard to believe for the very reasons you state.. Now depending on your political lean, you may want or not want to believe it, and that will (or should) be at odds with your desire to base your opinions on fact... Sadly, these days thought and fact are no longer required to form an opinion, whatever pulls on your heartstrings is good enough.
For that, I appreciate PF.. I'm on a very rural, right wing forum and the last year was insufferable on there, despite the rules of "No politics"

I am not a news junkie... I come across more than I need by accident.. most of the time I'm less than a week behind the times, and it really doesn't matter to me in the grand scheme of things...

 

[1oldman2]

Carl pretty well "nailed" the whole problem years ago in "The demon Haunted world". Lately as I peruse news I have done some serious revision on acceptable sources. Thanks for the Insights Zz, good show.

 

[JorisL]

A recent news article that talks about the same topic
Q&A: David Helfand on combating misinformation

 

[Aufbauwerk 2045]

We have a huge problem with fake science news, and I think much of it is due to a corporate and political movement to keep the Americans ignorant.

For example, we have fake news every day from the right-wing corporate media on the global warming issue. Just last week I heard a right-wing talk show host say that some heavy snowfall in parts of the country is yet more evidence that global warming is some kind of globalist hoax. They say things like "the climatologists hide the fact that their models have been wrong in recent years." Which models? Have they said which models? Not that I have heard. People hear lots of rubbish, but they do not hear that, according to NASA, 2016 was the hottest year on record.

Another good example is that evolution is still controversial in American education. Here is a link to what has been going on in Texas. The problem is that Texas has a major influence on what textbooks become widely used in the USA as a whole. This is a part of the country where many people still want equal time in science class for evolution and creationism. Actually many religious people would prefer to teach only creationism.

http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...schools_undermining_the_charter_movement.html

I think this sort of antiscientific disinformation campaign is extremely dangerous. I care about this much more than about the latest fake news story about this or that candidate.

 

[ZapperZ]

Folks, it appears that "Fake News" is now passe and old news. It is now "Alternative Facts".

Zz.

 

[john101]

Some quotes from Propaganda (1928) by Edward Bernays:

"Universal literacy was supposed to educate the common man to control his environment … But instead of a mind, universal literacy has given him rubber stamps, rubber stamps inked with advertising slogans, with editorials, with published scientific data, with the trivialities of the tabloids and the platitudes of history, but quite innocent of original thought."

"Ours must be a leadership democracy administered by the intelligent minority who know how to regiment and guide the masses."

"If you influence the leaders, either with or without their conscious cooperation, you automatically influence the group which they sway."

"Political campaigns today are all sideshows, all honors, all bombast, glitter, and speeches."