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

Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

bmj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 702 posts

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#41

Post by OldManAndTheCpp »

DarylZero wrote: post #29
OldManAndTheCpp wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Expertise isn't a cure all. An example is the famous Minux/Linux fight. Tanenbaum was a distinguished professor, arguing with some guy on the internet who built a kernel. "Is a monokernel a viable way to build a first rate operating system?" Fact Check: operating system researchers widely believe that monolithic kernels are a fundamentally flawed way to build a system... The premise that there are some specially endo…

You spelled Minix wrong and told the story wrong. Not the best way to make an argument against fact-checking.

> While I could go into a long story here about the relative merits of the two designs, suffice it to say that among the people who actually design operating systems, the debate is essentially over. Microkernels have won.

https://groups.google.com/g/comp.os.minix/c/wlhw16QWltI

I will concede that I spelled 'minix' wrong.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#42

Post by dqpb »

OldManAndTheCpp wrote: post #20
dqpb wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you fact check someone who has more expertise than you? How do you fact check a brand new fact?

Expertise isn't a cure all. An example is the famous Minux/Linux fight. Tanenbaum was a distinguished professor, arguing with some guy on the internet who built a kernel. "Is a monokernel a viable way to build a first rate operating system?" Fact Check: operating system researchers widely believe that monolithic kernels are a fundamentally flawed way to build a system... The premise that there are some specially endo…

Well, I wasn't saying that there should be specially endowed people, I was asking about the reverse: how can someone who is not informed fact-check someone who is?

Or to make it less personal, how can someone fact-check information they aren't knowledgeable about?

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#44

Post by nradov »

endisneigh wrote: post #22

Is fact checking that difficult? Imagine a forum that works in the following way: 1. You post similar to here. 2. Any post that has a claim is flagged. The poster, or another commenter has 24 hours (or some time period) to link to both a page and specific text (similar to how Google highlights search text when visiting a link) that supports the claim. 3. Once a claim is attached, posters can vote and downvote how wel…

What a silly proposal. You can find plenty of web pages with specific text that supports obvious falsehoods like flat earth theory.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#45

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

This one is much trickier than it looks. Reposting user nojito's post (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29596111), but here in a top level comment:

> The fact check was correct in this instance though?

> https://leadstories.com/hoax-alert/2021/11/fact-check-britis...

> The conclusions in the original BMJ article make zero sense when actually scrutinized.

> https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2635

Please read both URLs before commenting in depth.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#46

Post by goopthink »

In addition to the points raised by BMJ and in the comments below, there is a limit to what independent fact checking can accomplish. For example, are their fact checkers conducting their own scientific experiments validating claims and outcomes of a scientific paper? Are fact checkers reaching out to sources from a news article and verifying quoted information? When “breaking news” or “scoops” are reported presenting totally new information about the world, how can that be verified against other information that - by virtue of something being new - cannot be verified by other preexisting sources?

If the fact checking process is limited to verification based on other information that is currently available, and if the fact checking process cannot distinguish between factual information and the opinions people hold as a result of that information, the outcome will be an inevitable echo chamber that reinforces currently dominant views or whatever preexisting biases are present.

In short, fact checking is hard and there is a reason why reputable publishing outlets have their own internal fact verification processes before something gets published (including safeguards and retractions, because they make mistakes too), and why news is separated out from opinion-editorial pages... even if it is in style to add opinions (read: “perspective”) to every article.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#47

Post by netizen-936824 »

OldManAndTheCpp wrote: post #31
endisneigh wrote: post #22

Is fact checking that difficult? Imagine a forum that works in the following way: 1. You post similar to here. 2. Any post that has a claim is flagged. The poster, or another commenter has 24 hours (or some time period) to link to both a page and specific text (similar to how Google highlights search text when visiting a link) that supports the claim. 3. Once a claim is attached, posters can vote and downvote how wel…

How do you present novel ideas in this framework?

Gather evidence for it if the novel idea is a claim

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#48

Post by endisneigh »

OldManAndTheCpp wrote: post #31
endisneigh wrote: post #22

Is fact checking that difficult? Imagine a forum that works in the following way: 1. You post similar to here. 2. Any post that has a claim is flagged. The poster, or another commenter has 24 hours (or some time period) to link to both a page and specific text (similar to how Google highlights search text when visiting a link) that supports the claim. 3. Once a claim is attached, posters can vote and downvote how wel…

How do you present novel ideas in this framework?

Great question -

I'd say there are two main ways:

You have an assert that would comprise of many claims that are all supported independently by sources, and so you would then have a hypothesis and present it as so (as opposed to a fact, which would be a claim and require evidence, but inherently your idea is jus that).

You present your idea on another forum that's eventually made into a fact by empirical evidence and then later link to that, citing your novel idea. This as you imagine is somewhat self-referential and probably wouldn't work at scale.

Post reply on HN