So these self-appointed fact checkers... When they can't find any evidence of a claim, they boldly state that the claim is FALSE.

Absence of evidence is not proof that something did not happen. It merely means there's no proofb that it did happen, and that might change over time as more information comes to light.

It would be more honest to simply say there's no proof for the statement, rather than showing big red letters FALSE.

· · Web · 2 · 1 · 1

What fact check organisation do you have in mind? and for example do have an "unproven" rating. doesn't seem to have one. I guess there's a reason but I'm too lazy to thoroughly read their about page now.


I was looking at snopes and they were not using the "unproven" rating.

@jcbrand In current age of informational noise I'd rather equalize "it's not proven" with "it didn't happen", just because some state-agency became way too efficient in generating "versions" of the multiverse without any proof. But In general I agree, for the sake of clarity the categories must be distinct, even if meaning nowadays is blurred between them.


Do you have proof that this state agency is generating different versions of the multiverse?

If not, your assertion is FALSE! 😉

@jcbrand I do (they do it publicly) - and they would reply "your proofs are not proving anything therefore your statement is still FALSE!11" :)

Sign in to participate in the conversation

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!