= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
fubarobfusco comments on ClearerThinking's Fact-Checking 2.0 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (40)
In order to be fact-checked, a statement has to be truth-apt in the first place. That is, it has to be the sort of statement that is capable of being true or false.
A lot of political arguments aren't truth-apt; they amount to cheering ("Georgism, boo! Synarchism, yay!") as opposed to historical claims ("Countries that adopt goat control have seen their arson rate double") or even theoretical claims ("The erotic calculation problem predicts that college-educated adults will move out of states that ban vibrators").
Your criticism would be much more interesting if you pointed to concrete problems in my fact-checking/argument-checking.
I wasn't asserting problems with your fact-checking; I was stating a limitation on the project of fact-checking in general.
The limitation is that Schubert could only find 273 issues given his standards of what's worthy of commenting within the 2hr 55 min long CNN Republican debate and that's not enough to really engage with it?
Do you think that something that Schubert labeled as a wrong believe shouldn't be because you don't believe it to be truth-apt?