The Dubious Worth of Fact-Checking

A Skeptical Examination

Note: This essay reflects my biases, but was produced by ChatGPT 4.0 with my prompts. I had ChatGPT 4.o revise this later to put a positive spin on fact checking. The positions asserted subsequently stand in marked contradiction to what is maintained here.

Where does the truth lie? I guess I need a fact checker. Is LLM AI more or less credible than would be a human?

The Pollyannaish take is available here:

Introduction

Fact-checking has emerged as a prominent tool in the fight against misinformation, championed by media organizations and social platforms alike. However, the process itself is riddled with numerous issues and limitations that undermine its reliability. This essay presents a strong skeptical case against the efficacy of fact-checking, scrutinizing its epistemological foundations, the intellectual capabilities and pretensions of fact-checkers, and the inherent biases and constraints that plague the fact-checking process.

Epistemological Foundations: The Illusion of Objectivity

At its core, fact-checking presupposes the existence of an objective truth that can be unequivocally determined and verified. This assumption is fundamentally flawed. Knowledge is not static but dynamic and context-dependent. The belief that complex issues can be distilled into clear-cut truths or falsehoods ignores the nuanced nature of most information. Fact-checkers, in their quest for objectivity, often oversimplify matters, leading to misleading conclusions.

Intellectual Capabilities and Pretensions of Fact-Checkers

Fact-checkers are often perceived as impartial arbiters of truth, possessing the intellectual rigor to separate fact from fiction. However, this perception is misguided. Fact-checkers, like all humans, are subject to cognitive biases and limitations. Their expertise is typically limited, and they may lack the necessary depth of knowledge to accurately assess every issue they encounter. The pretense that fact-checkers can infallibly determine the truth is an overestimation of their capabilities.

Biases and Limitations in the Fact-Checking Process

1. Selective Information Sources: Fact-checkers do not operate in a vacuum. They rely on information sources that they selectively choose, influenced by their own biases and the availability of data. This selectivity introduces bias, as fact-checkers may prioritize sources that align with their perspectives or are more readily accessible. This can lead to a skewed representation of the facts.

2. Incomplete and Contradictory Information: The information available to fact-checkers is often incomplete and contradictory. Human assertions are a blend of truth and error, and fact-checkers have access to only a small subset of this information. They must navigate conflicting data, making subjective judgments about which sources to trust. This can result in erroneous or oversimplified conclusions.

3. Interpretation and Bias: The act of fact-checking is inherently interpretive. Fact-checkers must interpret the information they find, and this interpretation is colored by their own biases and perspectives. Different fact-checkers can reach different conclusions based on the same set of data, reflecting their subjective viewpoints rather than an objective reality.

4. Limited Selection of Sources: Fact-checkers are constrained by the sources available to them. They may not have access to the most recent or comprehensive information, limiting their ability to provide a complete and accurate assessment. This constraint can lead to fact-checks that are outdated or incomplete, further undermining their reliability.

Case Studies Illustrating the Flaws of Fact-Checking

Selective Use of Sources

During the 2020 U.S. presidential election, fact-checkers were criticized for selectively using sources to support particular narratives. For example, fact-checking organizations often relied heavily on statements from partisan news outlets or candidates' campaigns, which can be biased. This selective sourcing reinforced existing biases rather than providing an objective assessment of the facts.

Contradictory Nature of Sources

The debate over COVID-19 origins illustrates the challenges of contradictory sources. Initial claims about the virus's origin were labeled as misinformation by fact-checkers based on prevailing scientific consensus. However, as new evidence emerged, these claims gained credibility, exposing the limitations of fact-checkers who had initially dismissed them.

Political Bias in Fact-Checking

Fact-checking is not immune to political bias. During the COVID-19 pandemic, certain information was labeled as misinformation based on the dominant political and scientific views of the time. As the understanding of the virus evolved, some previously labeled misinformation turned out to be accurate, highlighting the fluid nature of facts and the political undercurrents influencing fact-checking.

Conclusion

While fact-checking aims to combat misinformation, it is fraught with significant challenges and limitations that call its efficacy into question. The process is built on shaky epistemological foundations, overestimates the intellectual capabilities of fact-checkers, and is riddled with biases and constraints. Fact-checkers must navigate selective information sources, incomplete and contradictory data, and the influence of their own perspectives, often leading to flawed conclusions. Recognizing these limitations is crucial for a more critical and nuanced understanding of the information we consume.