Oxymoron - "Real Time Fact Checking"?

[ERD50]

Gumby said: "If someone has been prosecuted and found by a judge or jury to have violated the law, then it would be a fact to say that they violated the law."

A conviction may be a fact, or it may not be. All we know by the conviction, is that they were found guilty in court. We don't know if the person actually did the deed. Nothing more. The only "fact" that can be said is that "they were found guilty of violating the law." this is a different statement. If we knew the fact, then there would be no reason for Judge or jury.

Facts are, well..... facts. This did, or didn't happen. Something is or isn't that. Facts are black or white, 1 or 0, true false. Nothing in between.

Exactly - the only fact was that "a judge or jury found them guilty". The actual fact involves whether they committed the crime or not, and a mistaken judge/jury, or an appeals process, does not change that fact (not without getting into sci-fi time machine and/or parallel universe territory!).

edit/add - I missed this line:

... But I am acutely aware that it is not a fact that you violated the law unless and until I prove it to the satisfaction of a judge and/or jury.

? That seems to say that it is impossible for the judge/jury to have made a mistake? You are saying that by getting a jury to agree, the act becomes a fact?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So even this group, with the time to consider things, type and edit before hitting 'submit' can't readily agree on what is a fact! That's my point against "real time fact checking".

-ERD50

 

[exnavynuke]

Fact checking is about determining if a statement is accurate based on the information currently available. That accuracy could later change if new information comes to light (perhaps the CIA will unclassify files saying they did in fact kill JFK, but for now such a claim would be determined to be false), but based on the available information we can determine something to be true, false, etc and that "checking of fact" can be done in any timeframe which provides the desired level of scrutiny.

 

[Gumby]

Exactly - the only fact was that "a judge or jury found them guilty". The actual fact involves whether they committed the crime or not, and a mistaken judge/jury, or an appeals process, does not change that fact (not without getting into sci-fi time machine and/or parallel universe territory!).

edit/add - I missed this line:



? That seems to say that it is impossible for the judge/jury to have made a mistake? You are saying that by getting a jury to agree, the act becomes a fact?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So even this group, with the time to consider things, type and edit before hitting 'submit' can't readily agree on what is a fact! That's my point against "real time fact checking".

-ERD50

Yes, a matter of epistemiology, it is possible that you can be found to have violated the law by a judge or jury, the finding subsequently upheld on appeal, and still "you didn't do it". But our system simply cannot function if there is never finality, so we define the "fact" that you violated the law as "was found by a trier of fact to have violated the law and that finding was upheld on appeal."

And let me add that on appeal the issue is usually not "did you or did you not do X?" Most often, the issue is "did your action X actually violate the law?" or "was there something improper in the process which found that you violated the law by doing X?"

If you want to contend that a person who is found in violation and has exhausted their appeals did not violate the law, then go right ahead. But certainly, when there has been no prosecution, conviction or appeal, you cannot claim that someone violated the law as a fact.

 

[ERD50]

... But certainly, when there has been no prosecution, conviction or appeal, you cannot claim that someone violated the law as a fact.

I don't think that even that is 'certain'.

First (and this is a admittedly a little bit of semantics/humor to make the point), you absolutely can "claim that someone violated the law as a fact". All you need to do is to make the claim - there, you did it. Now, defending that claim is a different story (see how words can be manipulated - which 'fact' are we talking about?).

And second, even that could be considered fact. If there is a preponderance of evidence and clear motive that someone committed a crime, and there is no reasonable alternative explanation, the fact isn't dependent on the timing or the outcome of the legal system. They committed the crime, and it will just take time for the legal system to process the information.

Now, news outlets will use the term 'alleged' to avoid libel claims, but that doesn't change the fact either.

-ERD50

 

[MRG]

It's a "point in time" fact. Based on the truth as it's understood right now. Long time ago lots of things were true that we know today are false.

 

[Gumby]

I don't think that even that is 'certain'.

-ERD50

Now you're arguing just to argue. Senator's opinion, or your opinion, or my opinion, that our disfavored candidate broke the law (and recall that there have been allegations against both) is just that, an opinion. Our justice system presumes that they did not violate the law unless and until they are prosecuted, tried and convicted. You may still be of the opinion that they broke the law even if they are not prosecuted, or notwithstanding an acquittal if they are, but the justice system says otherwise, and it is that system that defines their status, not our opinions.

 

[Big_Hitter]

IB porky

 

[MichaelB]

IB porky

Actually, no. So far, a delightful thread, discussing a difficult topic while respecting posting guidelines and avoiding that-which-shall-not-be-named.

 

[CRLLS]

Gumby, It may be that the legal system has its own definition of the word "Fact" I do not know. But it certainly sounds like it from your writing. Outside of the legal system, the word "fact" may take on a different definition. So we may be discussing different concepts.

I believe that ERD50 understands my use of the word fact 100%.

Back to the fact checkers (live or not). They all give their opinions on statements made last night of being true or not or somewhere in between. It can be said that it is a fact that they said or did this or that, if there is indisputable evidence (video). Still, it is a political situation and I find one side's truth is different that the other sides truth on the same matter.

IMO The use of the word "fact checkers" should be renamed "statement checkers/clarifiers".

 

[Texas Proud]

Yes, a matter of epistemiology, it is possible that you can be found to have violated the law by a judge or jury, the finding subsequently upheld on appeal, and still "you didn't do it". But our system simply cannot function if there is never finality, so we define the "fact" that you violated the law as "was found by a trier of fact to have violated the law and that finding was upheld on appeal."

And let me add that on appeal the issue is usually not "did you or did you not do X?" Most often, the issue is "did your action X actually violate the law?" or "was there something improper in the process which found that you violated the law by doing X?"

If you want to contend that a person who is found in violation and has exhausted their appeals did not violate the law, then go right ahead. But certainly, when there has been no prosecution, conviction or appeal, you cannot claim that someone violated the law as a fact.

I think you are looking through your lens as a prosecutor.... I am not a lawyer, but the little I know the jury is the 'finder of fact' in a trial and the judge determines the law...

But, for the discussion that most here this is way too narrow...

An example.... an ordinary citizen is driving their car.... they are speeding... the light changes to red and they run through the light...

Did they break the law SURE.... there is no question they broke the law... maybe nobody saw them and they got away with it.... but the fact is they broke the law...


Also, in the justice system there is not a determination of innocence... the jury finds either guilty or not guilty.... not guilty does not mean innocent.... it means that the prosecutor could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt the person was guilty.... but it does not change the fact that the person either did or did not do whatever....

 

[Midpack]

A relevant aside. Have you noticed that fact checking is more common than ever, even becoming an industry, and yet it doesn't seem our political dialog (Porky: meaning all sides) is any more factual. If anything it seems less so...

 

[ERD50]

Now you're arguing just to argue. ....

In a way, yes. But it is to point out how this 'fact checking' can be abused, and is not as simple as "that's the facts".

The rest of your comment was drifting into the specific issues regarding candidates that I was hoping to avoid so that we can continue the generic discussion w/o a visit from Porky, so I didn't copy it here. But I actually was not thinking along those lines anyway.

My example was just that a "lack of evidence" is not the same as "it didn't happen", and can be spun by 'fact checkers' to imply that it does mean that.

edit/add: Or the more subtle and dangerous and insidious - the 'fact checkers' don't challenge a statement, giving it an air of being true by omission of challenge.

-ERD50

 

[ERD50]

A relevant aside. Have you noticed that fact checking is more common than ever, even becoming an industry, and yet it doesn't seem our political dialog (Porky: meaning all sides) is any more factual. If anything it seems less so...

I would agree. -ERD50

 

[Gumby]

Also, in the justice system there is not a determination of innocence... the jury finds either guilty or not guilty.... not guilty does not mean innocent.... it means that the prosecutor could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt the person was guilty.... but it does not change the fact that the person either did or did not do whatever....

100% correct. But if you are going to advert to the legal system as a standard of behavior -- i.e. if you are going to say "When someone says they did not violate a law, and they actually did, that is a lie" -- then you accept the standards embodied in that same legal system to determine whether you have actually violated a law. If, your actions being known to the proper authorities, you are either not prosecuted or prosecuted and acquitted, then by definition of the legal system, you have not violated a law.

Other facts are subject to other rules, but the legal system itself defines who has "violated a law".

 

[Gumby]

My example was just that a "lack of evidence" is not the same as "it didn't happen", and can be spun by 'fact checkers' to imply that it does mean that.
-ERD50

We are in complete agreement on that. I have heard it stated that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

 

[MichaelB]

Isn't "Real Time Fact Checking" an oxymoron? Actual fact checking means studying the issue, checking your sources, weighing the matter, considering other input, and probably running it by a committee for consensus to try to remove personal bias.

"Real Time Fact Checking" seems to come down to - this is what I think right now, as I speak, w/o checking and w/o anyone to play devil's advocate.

"Actual" fact checking is redundant - actual means based on fact. "Real time" describes when it takes place, and there is no reason facts cannot be verified in real time. In fact, I think the "Watson" series on Jeopardy was an excellent example of real time fact checking, presented as entertainment.

As presented in the context where we see it today, "Real Time Fact Checking" is a programming feature, and if it was software, we would probably call it "buggy". It might be the start of something, or just fade away. Clearly, this Version 1.0 needs improvement.

 

[ExFlyBoy5]

HBO has a fairly new show (it's marketed as a nightly news program) that is put together by the Vice Network. They do tend to have a political leaning, but nonetheless, many of the stories they have run are pretty interesting. Last night's episode detailed the folks that run the "Politifact" website and how they do what they do. They followed them during the first two debates and showed how it was done in "real time" (many of the assertions have been made over and over). They are about as "real time" as a human can get when it comes to politics.

There...I kept it down the center, right? So no Porky?

 

[MRG]

"Actual" fact checking is redundant - actual means based on fact. "Real time" describes when it takes place, and there is no reason facts cannot be verified in real time. In fact, I think the "Watson" series on Jeopardy was an excellent example of real time fact checking, presented as entertainment.

As presented in the context where we see it today, "Real Time Fact Checking" is a programming feature, and if it was software, we would probably call it "buggy". It might be the start of something, or just fade away. Clearly, this Version 1.0 needs improvement.

Watson is also a great example of the compute power needed for real time fact checking with a small set of data. Watson only had 4TB* of data in 16TB of main storage(RAM). While storing all your data in memory can be done, it's pretty expensive.

*only 4TB, not sure if this still exists. but I recall mainframe VSAM having a hard limit of 2GB in a file.

 

[HFWR]

Was there a debate or something? [emoji12]

An alarming number of people don't seem interested in "facts", real-time or otherwise...

 

[Huston55]

OK, this obviously has political ties, but I'm really thinking strictly in terms of logic and, well, I guess intelligence. So I'm putting it in the "other" sub-forum. Separate from any specific political debate or discussion.

Isn't "Real Time Fact Checking" an oxymoron? Actual fact checking means studying the issue, checking your sources, weighing the matter, considering other input, and probably running it by a committee for consensus to try to remove personal bias.

"Real Time Fact Checking" seems to come down to - this is what I think right now, as I speak, w/o checking and w/o anyone to play devil's advocate.

Agree? Disagree? Thoughts?

-ERD50

Living is easy with eyes closed
Misunderstanding all you see
It's getting hard to be someone
But it all works out
It doesn't matter much to me

Let me take you down
'Cause I'm going to Strawberry Fields
Nothing is real
And nothing to get hung about
Strawberry Fields forever

The Beatles

Does anybody really know what time it is,
Does anybody really care...about fact checking

The fun starts at 1:42.

 

[rodi]

Also, in the justice system there is not a determination of innocence... the jury finds either guilty or not guilty.... not guilty does not mean innocent.... it means that the prosecutor could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt the person was guilty.... but it does not change the fact that the person either did or did not do whatever....

Actually - in some cases the judge can put in an motion of "factual innocence". I know because I was declared factually innocent in a jury trial. Jury acquitted me. Citing officers were shown to have lied on the stand (they were not allowed to hear each others testimony - and 3 officers gave 3 different accounts... significantly different... in order to "prove" I was guilty.) The prosecutor was pretty disgusted with the officers and agreed immediately to the motion.

I hope to never be a defendant again - but at least on that charge, I was declared "factually innocent".

See California Penal code 851.8.

 

[Huston55]

Actually - in some cases the judge can put in an motion of "factual innocence". I know because I was declared factually innocent in a jury trial. Jury acquitted me. Citing officers were shown to have lied on the stand (they were not allowed to hear each others testimony - and 3 officers gave 3 different accounts... significantly different... in order to "prove" I was guilty.) The prosecutor was pretty disgusted with the officers and agreed immediately to the motion.

I hope to never be a defendant again - but at least on that charge, I was declared "factually innocent".

See California Penal code 851.8.

Well, we HAVE to know now...What did you NOT do?

 

[Texas Proud]

Actually - in some cases the judge can put in an motion of "factual innocence". I know because I was declared factually innocent in a jury trial. Jury acquitted me. Citing officers were shown to have lied on the stand (they were not allowed to hear each others testimony - and 3 officers gave 3 different accounts... significantly different... in order to "prove" I was guilty.) The prosecutor was pretty disgusted with the officers and agreed immediately to the motion.

I hope to never be a defendant again - but at least on that charge, I was declared "factually innocent".

See .

Interesting... I had not heard of this before.... but from what you say the jury found you not guilty.... it took the judge to declare you innocent....


I wonder why the judge even allowed it to go to the jury... or why your lawyer did not request the charges be dropped...


I did take a look at the code you cited... and that shows that they have to destroy the arrest info... which to me is a good thing...

 

[ERD50]

Not "real Time", but somewhat related - Google adding a "Fact Check" label to some news stories:

Google News battles era of spin with fact check label | TechConnect

https://support.google.com/news/publisher/answer/4582731#fact-checking

Interesting, there is some mark-up capability to support this from a technical view, but I wonder how valuable this will be in practice. I don't see how they can prevent biased 'fact checking' - it's not easy to define, and it's not easy to get people to agree to what an unbiased view would be.

-ERD50

 

[target2019]

The data behind the fact-checking--who takes care of that database?