Many have questioned Meta's motivations for ditching fact checkers - but could it be a positive change?
www.bbc.com
This is an article discussing the suggested new method of Community Notes.
There are substantial problems with the community notes approach. One is
that perhaps 10% of readers (where this approach is used) actually read the notes.
Another is that there is no precise decision algorithm, that describes WHO is
qualified to post Community Notes.
Another is that SO MANY people can potentially post community notes, that all
sorts of views are represented, including views that are misinformed.
---------- ----------
Wikipedia is given as an example of using a volunteer base to compile knowledge.
BUT, as I have noted, the Wiki page on formal logic, has few references before
the time of Lady Gaga. So, some of these "volunteers" don't seem able to
pursue and read relevant BOOKS about the subject they are commenting on.
Regarding logic, the Protestant Fundamentalists still confuse "rhetoric" with
(modern) formal logic, and refer to some "logical fallacies", the detection of which
has been subsumed by modern formal logic. This is the expression of an outmoded
view of "logic".
ALSO, many mathematically minded people seem to think that "mathematics" is
different than logic, even though Russell and Whitehead (in Principia Mathematica)
proved that modern mathematices can be built solely on the foundation of modern
formal logic, and infinite set theory. That is, mathematics is an applied form of
formal logic.
As an example, I give some copyrighted quotes...
"A Note on Aristotelian Logic
Some of the older books on logic still use the categorical arguments/syllogisms that sometimes go all the way back to Aristotle:
The categorical logic that uses syllogisms, developed 4 kinds of statements that were commonly used in reasoning.
Note that all these forms can be represented in modern symbolic logic, and used in modern formal logic proofs.
A: for all (x) (Sx ==> Px)
E: for all (x) (Sx ==> NOT Px)
I: there exist (x) (Sx ==> Px)
O: there exist (x) (Sx ==> NOT Px)" [Christian Logic, 139]
"A Non-Drunken Walk in the Historical Woods
Aristotle’s “title of Founder of Logic” has never been disputed.” [The Science of Logic, 41]
What has been efficiently forgotten among modern Christians, is that Aristotle was a philosopher. As a philosopher, he was very interested in the nature of reality, the precise meaning of concepts, and what “causality” is. In the modern era, Aristotle’s wider interests, connected to logic, have been de-emphasized, or removed from the calculus of creating a valid proof, and thrown away.
The Christian use of logic has included the structural calculus of the rules of inference, but also, the concern that logic only results in TRUE conclusions, when logic is applied to our shared reality. That is, Christians (historically) have been concerned with arguments/demonstrations/proofs that were both logically valid, AND TRUE." [Christian Logic, 216-217]
"Rhetorical “Logical Fallacies”
The ancient “logical fallacies” were actually grab bags of categories (not complete) that described how some arguments could sometimes end up having logical fallacies, or unsound premises. Today, we would have to call them a combination of using definitions from a dysfunctional worldview, or appealing to some “authority” who did not know what they were talking about, or mistaking some operation that arrived at a conclusion, for a valid logical operation.
Because these ancient “logical fallacies” are such a grab bag, I am dealing with them outside of the presentation of a modern fusion of logic and a Christian worldview. Obviously, as most Christians are post-logic and sometimes appeal to the ancient “logical fallacies” as if they were normal or prescriptive, the reader may have to work through this section a few times, carefully, to understand why these ancient grab bags of errors just won’t do anymore.
Note that logic and rhetoric grew up together. In the ancient Greek and Roman empires, it was difficult to identify logic as something distinctively different from rhetoric.
The purpose of rhetoric was to persuade. Rhetoric may or may not use valid logical arguments. (Rhetoric may appeal to the emotions, which is not a logical methodology.)
Key Idea
In medieval and ancient rhetoric, the concept of valid logic was combined/mixed with the concept that an individual proposition was TRUE or FALSE. Both of these things were argued by ancient philosophers, at the same time." [Chriatian Logic, 393]
[The Science of Logic] The Science of Logic: an inquiry into the principles of accurate thought and scientific method (Volume I), Peter Coffey, public domain, Alpha Editions, 2020. This is a reprint of a much older book, and is included to show the way back to historic reasoning.
[Christian Logic]. Christian Logic, Stephen Wuest, 2024, etc.
---------- ----------
The idea that authoritative assertion about what is TRUE, can be made SOLELY
using internet search engines, that can only search text that is directly available
on the internet, is VERY NAIVE. Many human fact-checkers only bother to use
electronically reachable text.
Note that Wikipedia authors, often are rated as "authoritative" according to how
many entries they have written in Wikipedia. THIS method, is hardly an accurate
metric of who is an authority, on a specific subject.
The method of Community Notes, ditches responsibility of the big social media
platforms to do serious filtering of posts for fact-checking. And, the result will
be Notes written by "note writers" whom the big platforms like. This is just another
version of algorithms that promote whatever viewpoint the owner of the platform
wants to be promoted.
