Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Co-founder of Snopes was writing plagiarized articles under a fake name

buzzfeednews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 417 posts

Re: Co-founder of Snopes was writing plagiarized articles under a fake name

#321

Post by kelnos »

javert wrote: post #287
unclebucknasty wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But, even critical thinking ability relies on good inputs. There must be some baseline of facts to work with. I do agree however that fact-checking is extremely challenging, but for different reasons. That is, in a society that is being programmed to choose the reality/truth they prefer, you'll end up with cult-like belief systems that no amount of fact-checking will break through.

For a critical thinker, the baseline facts come from the person's own direct experience. They have to. For example, I probably wouldn't 100% believe that hundreds of people can cross the sky in a metal tube (i.e., modern jet airplane) if I had only been told about it. But I've seen it myself. Another example: I've learned enough about technology to think the moon landings were feasible, and I've learned enough about…

> For example, I probably wouldn't 100% believe that hundreds of people can cross the sky in a metal tube (i.e., modern jet airplane) if I had only been told about it. But I've seen it myself.

By that reasoning, all the people who deny the moon landings happened are completely logical, no? And there should be a lot more of them, right? Hell, I've never even seen a rocket take off (outside of video broadcasts), let alone seen spacecraft in flight, so I shouldn't believe in the moon landings either, right?

Re: Co-founder of Snopes was writing plagiarized articles under a fake name

#322

Post by ypcx »

kstrauser wrote: post #210

I really want to like Snopes, but I'm not convinced that they weigh evidence correctly. For example, they debunked the myth that Marilyn Monroe had 6 toes. First, I don't believe that she did . Or even care, for that matter. But at the time, one of their "facts" was that if she'd had a toe removed, she'd basically have to learn to walk all over again because it would throw her balance completely off. (Note: the artic…

> I really want to like Snopes

Herein lies the archetypical problem with the vanilla HN (or should I say "mainstream") crowd conformist mentality. As a human herd animal, we want to belong, but it's not okay to forgo our critical thinking to do so. Downvote away.

Re: Co-founder of Snopes was writing plagiarized articles under a fake name

#323

Post by dragonwriter »

luckylion wrote: post #170
dragonwriter wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can just omit the references and reasoning that go against your narrative. You can, but it will then be obvious to anyone familiar with the references or who has the power of reasoning that you have failed (innocently or not) to consider them, not that you have found something that debunks them.

But that doesn't matter, does it? Anyone familiar with the topic will already know what's up, and anyone interested enough to research the topic will be able to do so as well. The point of declaring true/false is to have the final word for most readers. "No need to look further, Snopes said it's true". Sure, anyone can provide evidence to say you're wrong, but they're just some random blogger and nobody reads them. A…

> But that doesn't matter, does it?

Yes, it does.

> Anyone familiar with the topic will already know what’s up, and anyone interested enough to research the topic will be able to do so as well.

They will be able to do so…by reviewing and evaluating information from sources that provide the evidence and logic on which they rest conclusions. That a “fact checker” is such a source is…clearly something that matters.

> The point of declaring true/false is to have the final word for most readers.

And the point of providing support is to provide the ability for the readers that are willing to do more legwork to evaluate the claims, which is also how a fact checker gets (or loses, either because it fails to do this or because following back doesn’t support their claims) the reputation which allows them to be trusted by the users that don’t do the extra legwork. Same as any other source, because all a fact checker is is another research source that happens to be focussed on claims of current salience and controversy.

> “No need to look further, Snopes said it’s true”.

Which only holds up as a long as Snopes reputation holds up.

> Sure, anyone can provide evidence to say you’re wrong, but they’re just some random blogger and nobody reads them.

That would be a problem in a world where Snopes was the sole and universally accepted “fact checker” and every other source of information was regarded as “just a random blogger”. But there are lots of fact checkers (both standalone and as part of media organizations), and a lot of focus by interested parties with very influential platforms on the reliability of various entities that hold themselves out as fact checkers or other fact sources.

Re: Co-founder of Snopes was writing plagiarized articles under a fake name

#324

Post by tablespoon »

jdavis703 wrote: post #318
jeffbee wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole COVID "skeptic" circus is full of quacks with irrelevant credentials, like urologists and orthodontists. As a prominent example, I give you Rand Paul. If you take advice on infectious diseases from an ophthalmologist, you're going to have a bad time.

My ophthalmologist requires masks and social distancing in his office. He also recommended against wearing contacts for the duration of the pandemic (he says glasses offer more protection.) Why am I going to have a bad time for following his rules and advice?

>> If you take advice on infectious diseases from an ophthalmologist, you're going to have a bad time.

> Why am I going to have a bad time for following his rules and advice?

You're not, you're just being over-literal. Most ophthalmologists are sensible people who will give guidance outside their fields that comports with the guidance from medical professionals in that field. That sounds like your ophthalmologist. However, if you find an ophthalmologist who blatantly contradicts the guidance from areas far outside his field, then that's when "you're going to have a bad time." The reason for that is you've likely found someone who doesn't respect the limits of his own knowledge and experience.

Re: Co-founder of Snopes was writing plagiarized articles under a fake name

#325

Post by jeffbee »

jdavis703 wrote: post #318
jeffbee wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole COVID "skeptic" circus is full of quacks with irrelevant credentials, like urologists and orthodontists. As a prominent example, I give you Rand Paul. If you take advice on infectious diseases from an ophthalmologist, you're going to have a bad time.

My ophthalmologist requires masks and social distancing in his office. He also recommended against wearing contacts for the duration of the pandemic (he says glasses offer more protection.) Why am I going to have a bad time for following his rules and advice?

If your podiatrist says the earth is round, and you agree, you are not taking advice in cosmology from a podiatrist. But if your podiatrist tells you the earth is flat, and you believe that, then you are. See the difference?

Re: Co-founder of Snopes was writing plagiarized articles under a fake name

#326

Post by michaelt »

ralph84 wrote: post #285
harpiaharpyja wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fact-checking is a dead end, a poor substitute for development of critical thinking skills in the broader population. It may be more challenging, but that's what we need to start working towards.

Has there ever been a time in history when those in power desired critical thinking skills in the broader population? Those in power want a compliant population, not a questioning one.

Every politician wants voters to see through the other guy's propaganda.

And if voters pick up critical thinking skills as a side-effect of education that will get them high-paying jobs, what's not to like?

Re: Co-founder of Snopes was writing plagiarized articles under a fake name

#327

Post by incrudible »

exporectomy wrote: post #308
millzlane wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rapes actually dropped. They debunked it in the article. Sweden doesn't have the highest rape rate. If you look at the graph that they mention from the article. https://www.snopes.com/tachyon/2017/03/sd-graph.jpg "– The question posed on sexual crimes in NTU includes a wide range of crimes. It can range from minor events [like] flashing and groping, to very serious incidents of rape. Those who say they suffered must…

Nothing you wrote contradicts the claim of it being the rape capital. The rate can drop and still be the highest. Are you aware that you're not logically countering the parent comment but just saying something tangential to it?

That is basically how a fact check works if the claim is true but you want to debunk it anyway. Talk about something related that is directionally opposite to the claim, then give the ˋmisleadingˋ verdict.

Re: Co-founder of Snopes was writing plagiarized articles under a fake name

#330

Post by richk449 »

rustyminnow wrote: post #299
richk449 wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m curious what you mean by this. Assuming you are American, do you think that Obama or Trump or Biden wish that the population was more compliant, and had weaker critical thinking? Why would that benefit them? Most leaders think they are right, and I would think they would want enhanced critical thinking in the population so that the people would better appreciate the leaders rightness.

Sure, the President of the United States holds an office with a lot of executive power, but there are plenty of other people with other forms of power that would have an interest in a compliant population. I hate to beat the "evil-zillionaire" drum, but if you made your fortunes selling people juice-boxes they don't really need, you'd prefer it if they complicitly buy all the junk your ads tell them to buy instead of…

Okay, sure, cult leaders and juice box company executives don’t want critical thinking in the populace. I guess those aren’t who I think of when I think of the powerful.
Post reply on HN