Fact Check: Why mostly true, what us wrong?
“Why mostly true, what us wrong?”
Summary
Proper statistical testing can provide strong evidence that a claim is true, but numerous studies show that data—particularly from social media or poorly vetted sources—often contain errors, bias, or methodological flaws that make them wrong. Misleading evidence is common in legal and scientific contexts, and logical fallacies can further disguise false conclusions. Consequently, many assertions are indeed mostly true, yet a significant share are incorrect due to these issues.
Sources 60 searched
- Statistical Evidence - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics
The rejection of NH constitutes statistical evidence supporting the RH, because our statistical significance test helps us rule out sampling error, or chance, as a viable explanation for the observed difference between the two samples. In statistical significance testing, we assess the probability ...
- The illusion of data validity: Why numbers about people are likely wrong - ScienceDirect
Analysis of social media data prior to the same 2020 U.S. presidential election showed major support for the Red Party (Sharma et al., 2022). The social media analysis was also wrong in this regard, where the social media volume of posts was inversely correlated with votes. The Blue Party got more votes than the Red Party. Think of all the social media research and articles published from that data - what if most of it is wrong?
- A systematic analysis of misleading evidence in unsafe rulings in England and Wales - ScienceDirect
Witness (39%), forensic (32%), and character evidence (19%) were the most commonly observed evidence types, with the validity of witnesses (26%), probative value of forensic evidence (12%), and relevance of character evidence (10%) being the ...
- The Illusion of Argument Justification - PMC - NIH
Checking your browser before accessing pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov · Click here if you are not automatically redirected after 5 seconds
- Metacognitive Labeling of Contentious Claims: Facts, Opinions, and Conspiracy Theories - PMC
At the extremes, “Smoking causes lung cancer” was rated as strongly factual (M = 2.47) and garnered equally strong average agreement (M = 2.50); “Supermodels are the most beautiful people in the world” was rated as strongly not factual (M = −2.15), and garnered strong disagreement ...
- Fallacies | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Like its close cousin, the Fallacy ... have studied the claim and have come to a reasoned conclusion that it is correct. What most everyone believes is likely to be true, all things considered, and if one defends a claim on those grounds, this is not a fallacious infere...
- Facts are not always more important than opinions: here’s why - School of Historical and Philosophical Inquiry - University of Queensland
Matters of fact are confined to empirical claims, such as what the boiling point of a substance is, whether lead is denser than water, or whether the planet is warming.
- Master List of Logical Fallacies
Master List of Logical Fallacies · Fallacies are fake or deceptive arguments, "junk cognition," that is, arguments that seem irrefutable but prove nothing. Fallacies often seem superficially sound and they far too often retain immense persuasive power even after being clearly exposed as false.
- “Facts” Are True; “Statements” and “Assertions” Can Be False
In the language of reason, logic, rhetoric, religion and, most significantly, law and science, the teacher was absolutely correct about what “fact” means. It means a statement that can be proven to be true or false. It is contrasted with things like opinions or beliefs. That means that there are such things as true facts and false facts. For example, in American defamation law, a person might have a claim for defamation if he or she can show that the defendant has intentionally and publicly made a false defamatory statement of fact.
This fact check is free and donation-based. $1 powers ~30 fact-checks.
