Verification Frameworks

FRAMEWORKS

We have discussed the framework that maths and science have for deciding what to accept as truth. For maths it’s logical proof. For experimental science the framework consists of finding evidence. It is based in statistics, which means that scientists are required to find evidence to back up a theory to a good level of certainty. The framework then says that if new evidence arises to overturn that level of certainty or even point in a different direction, science changes the theory accordingly. This is very different from the kind of “theory” where you just make something up because you feel like it.

We can examine something similar for the framework of news reporting. Reporters are supposed to gather information to back up their story, according to a certain framework of accountability. It is less rigorously defined than in science, but there are still standards to do with cross-checking and reliability of sources. Again, this is very different from the kind of “news” where someone just makes something up. In both cases the report might turn out to be wrong, but in the first case there is a procedure for discovering it is wrong and retracting it, whereas in the second case there isn’t.

This is the crucial difference between erroneous reporting and “fake news”. Unfortunately the term “fake news” has been appropriated by some people to mean, more or less, “anything I disagree with”. If a newspaper retracts an article because they find that their sources turned out to be unreliable or misinformed, some people are likely to shout “Fake news!” However, at least the newspaper has a framework and procedure for verification of its reports. It is always unfortunate when something only turns out to be wrong after publication, but this happens in science despite much more rigorous validation processes, so is bound to happen in journalism, which works with less rigour and much more time pressure. It is important for the rational among us to maintain the distinction between statements arrived at via a framework and those without. It is tempting to try and distinguish between “facts” and falsehoods, but if you follow logic carefully you should find it difficult to say for sure what a fact is. The best we can do is have a statement verified according to a well-described framework, and an allowance for the fact that the framework might later find it to be wrong.

At this point we are once again in danger of getting caught in a loop, because there are reasonable and unreasonable frameworks. If “reasonable” is defined according to having a “reasonable framework”, have we actually got anywhere or are we just making a cyclic definition?

I think this is why people can disagree so much about what counts as reasonable and what doesn’t: because the notion of what counts as a reasonable framework is sociological, just like the notion of what counts as a valid mathematical proof turned out to be sociological. One group of people thinks that the scientific method is the most reasonable framework, whereas another group thinks it is a conspiracy. One group thinks that the Bible is the most reasonable framework, and another group thinks it is a piece of fiction.

This is why one of the few things I can come back to as a sign of unreasonableness is if someone is absolutely unprepared to change their mind about something. This often takes the form of hero-worship, and I believe it is very dangerous to rational society.