Read on Twitter
I like where mike is going here but both faith and beliefs are opinions, or maybe ‘feelings’, and you can’t ‘prove’ beliefs. Which is ok.
Things that you can prove are called facts. That means they can be checked.
Beliefs, opinions, and faith, all cannot be ‘fact checked’ https://twitter.com/mikestopforth/status/1248532246786723840
Things that you can prove are called facts. That means they can be checked.
Beliefs, opinions, and faith, all cannot be ‘fact checked’ https://twitter.com/mikestopforth/status/1248532246786723840
When we started developing a language for fact-checking several years ago (I worked with @africacheck from 2013-2018 & still teach fact-checking), we knew there were + still are many limitations to the words we used – what is a 'fact' anyway? But we also needed to be pragmatic.
So we worked with a simple premise: that there were things that *could* be checked, and things that could not. The things that can be checked, we call those 'facts'. They have data or evidence to support them, so you can check them.
In fact-checking, we tend to say something is 'accurate' or 'correct' rather than 'true', because truth often sits in the of belief. And true is not = correct, if you get my thinking.
You can read Africa Check's ranking system here: https://africacheck.org/about-us/how-we-rate-claims/
You can read Africa Check's ranking system here: https://africacheck.org/about-us/how-we-rate-claims/
When I teach fact-checking, I explain that facts are things we *can* check. Things that we *cannot* 'check' are: beliefs, opinions, faith, & the future.
This is also about time management. If journalist fact-checkers try and fact-check a source's beliefs, they will fail
This is also about time management. If journalist fact-checkers try and fact-check a source's beliefs, they will fail
So does that mean 'beliefs' should remain unchallenged or undebated? Not at all. As @mikestopforth thread does point out, we often base our beliefs (which are opinions, based on our personal construct and content) on false or misleading information, or info we have not understood
And another part of fact-checking I teach is about bias, and how multiple systems of personal and societal bias inhibit us from seeking or identifying the information we need in order to obtain and integrate accurate information.
But it is also not 100% accurate to say beliefs only stem from faulty facts. They also stem from faith-belief systems. We are complex organisms, and the way we process information is equally complex. Our belief systems can even affect our ability to do maths properly.
Here's an example of a report of a study about how personal politics (belief) can compromise your math ability: https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/09/new-study-politics-makes-you-innumerate/
here I need to re-affirm – 'beliefs' *do* absolutely interact with and influence your rational functioning.
But beliefs are also important. And can't always be 'proven' because they are not only about facts.
How do you 'prove' conservatives are wrong and liberals are right?
But beliefs are also important. And can't always be 'proven' because they are not only about facts.
How do you 'prove' conservatives are wrong and liberals are right?
So: you can challenge and debate and argue beliefs (and this very thing is what makes society so interesting).
But you can't 'prove' them.
(Maybe you can 'improve' them?)
But you can't 'prove' them.
(Maybe you can 'improve' them?)
What's NB here is to separate out 'challenging beliefs' & 'fact checking'. We developed words + systems for fact-checking so our methods would be transparent, consistent and replicable. Fact-checking is not a 'debate' about which beliefs you choose to hold based on those facts.
