World's Most Famous Liar

His scam on America continues as he sells a $5 t-shirt for $34. Yes, like his candidacy for President, many will buy his snake-oil and swallow his cool-aid.

Trump’s drumbeat of lies about the 2020 election keeps getting louder. 

Here are the facts

https://apnews.com/article/trump-2020-election-lies-debunked-4fc26546b07962fdbf9d66e739fbb50d

ChatGPT: List 5 strategies for combating disinformation on Facebook

- Strengthen fact-checking and content moderation: Facebook should invest in robust fact-checking mechanisms and strengthen its content moderation policies.
https://mtskeptics.blogspot.com/p/fake-news.html

- Promote transparency in advertising: Facebook should require advertisers to disclose their identities and funding sources for political or controversial ads. 

- Enhance user education and critical thinking: Facebook can invest in educational initiatives to promote media literacy and critical thinking skills among its users. 
https://mtskeptics.blogspot.com/p/critical-thought.html 

- Algorithmic adjustments: Facebook can explore ways to diversify users' information sources to reduce the likelihood of echo chambers and filter bubbles.

- Collaborate with external experts and researchers: Facebook should actively collaborate with external experts, researchers, and organizations that specialize in disinformation, cybersecurity, and media ethics. 
https://mtskeptics.blogspot.com/

Bonhoeffer’s “theory of stupidity”

We have more to fear from stupid people than evil ones.

Adapted from Jonny Thomson

https://bigthink.com/thinking/bonhoeffers-theory-stupidity-evil/

“Debating an idiot is like trying to play chess with a pigeon — it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory.” 

Rumor Guard

The News Literacy Project is encouraging everyone to push back against misinformation with its new platform, RumorGuard, which helps you know what’s safe to share and which rumors should be stopped in their tracks. It cites topical viral rumors and lays out exactly how the public can determine that a claim doesn’t hold weight, based on five factors for credibility.

Blindspot Report

Often NO information is comparable to MIS or FAKE information.  Most people watch only one or group of sources that best match THEIR preferred bias. It often explains how many people have some bizarre opinions. Most people aren't stupid; they're just lazy or don't care about knowing the facts.

For those who prefer factual and balanced reporting Ground News provides a tool. It is a platform that makes it easy to compare news sources, read between the lines of media bias and break free from algorithms. 

The Ground News Blindspot (https://ground.news/blindspot) provides a rating system that adds context and transparency to every news story. Readers from all walks of life can conveniently identify media bias, check source credibility, and view ownership data for news outlets around the world.

The bias and factuality ratings are determined using three independent news monitoring organizations: All Sides, Ad Fontes Media, and Media Bias Fact Check. The ownership categories were researched and developed by Ground News.

Getting Facts with TEDx

Dr. Dan Bellack, a doctorate in psychology from the University of Kentucky, outlines a three step strategy to deal with Fake News. He suggests how readers can improve their thinking separating fact from fiction in order to make informed decisions.  This talk was given at a TEDx event using the TED conference.

A Life Preserver for Staying Afloat in a Sea of Misinformation

Melanie Trecek-King goals as a science educator are to teach students the essential skills of science literacy and critical thinking. Helping them understand the process of science and how to draw reasonable conclusions from the available evidence can empower them to make better decisions and protect them from being fooled or harmed.

Yet while educators agree that these skills are important, the stubborn persistence of pseudoscientific and irrational beliefs demonstrates that we have plenty of room for improvement. To help address this problem, she developed a general-education science course (Trecek-King 2022) that, instead of teaching science as a collection of facts to memorize, teaches students how to evaluate the evidence for claims to determine how we know something and recognize the characteristics of good science by evaluating bad science, pseudoscience, and science denial.

https://skepticalinquirer.org/2022/02/a-life-preserver-for-staying-afloat-in-a-sea-of-misinformation/

New measures to curb the viral spread of pandemic misinformation

In the hopes of curbing the rampant spread of coronavirus misinformation, the WHO announced yesterday that it will grant Wikipedia free use of its published information, graphics, and videos in a first-of-its-kind collaboration.  This partnership also means WHO material will be part of the Wikimedia Commons, and can be reproduced or retranslated anywhere so long as there’s appropriate attribution.

Since the start of the pandemic, Wikipedia—once widely regarded as unreliable—has been a key resource for debunking misinformation about coronavirus. By contrast, researchers from Cornell recently found that President Trump was likely the loudest source of coronavirus misinformation during the pandemic’s early months. As a result of the president’s attitudes, many prestigious scientific and medical journals have published editorials denouncing his handling of coronavirus.

Who Checks the Fact Checkers

When circulating the information about Poynter.com, I was asked, “Who Checks the Fact-Checkers?”

My first response was -- use what I posted on my website https://mtskeptics.blogspot.com/2020/10/fact-checking-101.html  

However, I thought I would “google” the question to see if I could get a better answer.

I figured with the upcoming election that email, Facebook, Twitter, etc. would be Jammed with fallacious “information,” since one side or the other must lose. To avoid a lot of unnecessary hyperventilation, I would share what I find out. I hope people of either political persuasion would rather not hear misinformation that only substantiates their opinion. They prefer the truth. Maybe.  

FACT CHECKING 101

Poynter.com offers a FREE self-directed course in FACT CHECKING for Seniors. The course is very much apolitical and unbiased. However, I would not be surprised if when some people apply these lesson material to their favorite sources they find them full of mis- or dis-information and as a result think this course is biased or political.  It is. It is biased against the spread of garbage.

The course teaches the following checks and procedures:

• How to check who is behind the information

• What is the evidence

• What are other sources saying

• Lateral reading

• Smart keyword search and click restraint

• Using Wikipedia responsibility

• Reverse image search

I have been asked, "Who checks the fact-checkers?" Answer is - YOU! and this teaches you how.

Why do we see ghosts?

This story appears in the Fall 2020, Mystery issue of Popular Science.

By Jake Bittle ,October 6, 2020

Let's call it the Scooby-Doo effect.MC Wolfman

Are ghouls real? That depends. Current science can’t prove that there are spirits walking through walls or screaming below floorboards. Our spooky sightings, however, have certainly felt real. Humans have been spotting specters for as long as we’ve been around, and to some degree we can explain why. These seven mental and physical factors can account for almost any creepy occurrence—including some famous ones ripe for debunking—and help to make sense of our perpetual urge to sleep with the night light on.

Hands-On Lessons to Separate Fact from Fiction Online

While reviewing the content of a new ADD to this website,
I ran across this TRAINING.
MediaWise for Seniors: Hands-On Lessons to Separate Fact from Fiction Online
https://www.poynter.org/shop/self-directed-course/mediawise-for-seniors-hands-on-lessons-on-separating-fact-and-fiction-online/

With the rampant COVID misinformation and the upcoming election,
I don’t think WE can send it to enough people.

COVID Stupidity and Related Conspiracy

      We try really hard not to post opinion and politically biased content on this blog, but there is a limit to the level of stupidity that even we can tolerate.  If the ignorance only harms the person mouthing it, that is fine.  They are entitled.  That is their right.  It might even keep them away from wasting resources.  It "thins the gene pool." 

     The big claim of the ignorant now is all this COVID hysteria is a result of media hype.  So if that might be true (and it isn't), what is their recommendation?  Forget the social distancing, forget the masks, forget the extra caution?  What is the value of such an absurd claim?

     No careful observer will deny the media have really latched onto COVID reporting.  It is as if they have nothing else to talk about.  But the facts don't lie (unlike certain politicians).  They are available for anyone who wishes to monitor for himself what is happening. They can then share their analysis like an expert rather than a fool who sources his info solely from other idiots on social media. 

Related to this claim COVID is primarily media exaggeration, here is an old COVID conspiracy theory that seems to be making the rounds again.  Conspiracy theories unfortunately never die, unlike the people who choose to believe them.

CLAIM: Hospitals are inflating the number of COVID-19 cases and deaths so they can be paid more.

RESPONSE:: Recent legislation pays hospitals higher Medicare rates for COVID-19 patients and treatment, but there is no evidence of fraudulent reporting.

FULL REPORT: 
https://www.factcheck.org/2020/04/hospital-payments-and-the-covid-19-death-count/

Most of us just choose to rely on credible sources and ignore others that have a history of misstatements and related ignorance, except when the misinformed put us, our family, and friends at serious risk.  

In order to stay safe, make a visit to . https://www.factcheck.org/issue/covid-19/

Mis-Information Risk of FACEBOOK

      The July/August edition of AARP.org bulletin "Your Life" reports that as of 2018 only 16% of Americans get their news from printed newspapers. While major TV news sources are still available to provide mostly credible coverage and perspectives, about half get their news from FACEBOOK.  That poses a major risk for the dissemination of biased and misinformation.  It happens as follows.

    In order to keep its audience engaged, FACEBOOK employs numerous algorithms to determine the interests of its subscribers.  By memorizing what a reader "likes" and "dislikes" and what he or she follows, FACEBOOK, can cater to the reader's interest.by serving up content that pleases, regardless of the validity.. 

It's like mental opium.  

      Gradually, the reader is moved into a microcosm of the real world.  They begin to think their opinions, no matter how distorted, represent the majority.  It is insidious; very few recognize or care that it is happening.
    Even worse, these are often the same people who are the first to cry "fake news" and "pox on your house."  They are quite comfortable with their ignorance and think it is an encroachment on their First-Amendment rights to fact-check what they are being fed.  
    Nevertheless, if a reader makers it to this blog, he is most likely not one of these people.  With that in mind, consider that the AARP article offers several ways to avoid the FACEBOOK trap and to "Be a Smart News Consumer,"

• Research the "Byline."  If no author is listed, that is a red flag. Determine if the author is credible or has a known agenda.
• Search the Headline. 70% of people don't read past the headlne and that is a source of "clickbait." Read the whole article.before making judgment.
• Check out the sources. Do a search of the "evidence."  Discard articles that do not provide references to credible sources. . . 
• Check out the coverage.  Legitimate news coverage rarely shows up on just one site... 
• Validate the "dates".  Make sure it is actual current news and not a rehash of some longtime ago discredited report.
• Determine the "basis" for the report. Is it actual news or someone's opinion?  Since everyone has an opinion, it is often best to keep these limited.
• Use the references on this website to FACT-CHECK even those articles with which you agree.BEFORE you hit that "Share" button.
  

THINK! before YOU share

The Shape of Misinformation

The following meme is now being shared on FACEBOOK.  It is a classic example of how misinformation is used to polarize opinions.

The above meme does contain a lot of facts and appeals to many people's emotion regarding both climate change and the media.  The problem is - the meme contains one glaring lie - Dr. Judith Curry NEVER said Climate Change is a hoax.

Dr. Curry is a reputable climate scientist that recognizes the enormous complexity of climate science and urges people not to rush to simplistic solutions or causes based on correlation models, such as those promulgated by the IPCC.  The fact that she isn't one of the alarmists has designated her as a Climate Change Denier, which couldn't be farther from the truth.

Check out Dr. Curry's blog at https://judithcurry.com/

What is the MOMO Challenge?

      The Momo Challenge and the Blue Whale Game are part of a folkloric tradition of what’s called a fear test - will teens be brave—or scared—enough to complete the challenge, even if they know it will end in their deaths?  The ultimate test is one that instructs the teen to commit suicide.

      However, there is little evidence that these games have actually led to teen suicides. For the most part the stories about suicides are nothing more than media caused panic paticularly in parents who may not be as tuned into the activities of their children as they should be. Its another form of stranger danger that have created a generator of helicopter parents who envision a threat around every corner.

     According to Benjamin Radford, a scientific paranormal investigator, a research fellow at the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. "It’s easy for grief and moral panic to override critical thinking. The evidence for the Blue Whale game and the Momo Challenge is built largely on rumor and conjecture instead of solid evidence. This is only the latest in a long series of similar moral panics and outrages shared on social media and aided by sensationalist news media"  Click here to read his whole article

Efficacy of Intercessonary Prayer

      It is common practice at most churches to request prayers or to have prayer services for someone sick. But who does these prayers help?  Numerous attempts to prove scinetificallyhave all failed to demonstrate any benefit to the ill, including a study funded by the John Templeton Foundation.

      In 1982, Randolph Byrd, a cardiologist at the San Francisco General Medical Center and born-again Christian believed that he could put faith-based prayer on a solid scientific foundation by implementing rigorous study using a double-blind randomized clinical trial. He randomly engaged four-hundred cardiac patients to prayed-for and not-prayed-for by Christian intercessors.  He found highly questionable and virtually little benefit to prayer.

      Subsequently, four new major investigations incorporating the same procedures Byrd had followed were carried out at other medical centers: William Harris, Saint Luke’s Hospital (1999); Jennifer Aviles, Mayo Clinic (2001); Mitchell Krucoff, Duke University Medical Center (2005); and Herbert Benson, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (2006). Their results were as follows:

Various broader meta-studies of the literature in the field have been performed showing evidence only for no effect or a potentially small effect (maybe depending on one's bias). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studies_on_intercessory_prayer 

So what explanation do those who uphold the value of prayer offer?

• The research is premised on a misconception of how God responds to prayer.
• God is outside the domain of science and therefore is not amenable to experimental evaluation.
• It is not possible to randomize God or truly understand his will.
• Research can neither prove nor disprove the validity of divine intervention.
• Because God already knows who needs healing, prayer is superfluous.
• It is a corruption of faith, if not willful blasphemy or sacrilege, to test God.

For additional information read:
https://secularhumanism.org/2018/12/have-christians-accepted-the-scientific-conclusion-that-god-does-not-answer-intercessory-prayer/

Media Bias

If you think your news source sounds a little biased, it probably is.  That was the conclusion we came you while reading the magazine "The Week."  We were impressed by their practice of trying to share both sides of a contenious topic, but in our most recent reading (December 7, 2018), it seemed the column space (i.e. written acreage) was heavier on the more liberal position. It was time to check the Media-Bias-Chart.

The Version 4.0, updated in August 2018 is found at https://www.adfontesmedia.com/

Sure enough the authors of the chart consider The Week as skewing LEFT.  Could be our Confirmation Bias, but we don't think so.  However, the magazine is included in their YELLOW box, which they believe report the news fairly.

More important our the source in the ORANGE and RED boxes.  They provide either EXTREME or UNFAIR versions of the news or in the RED case PROVIDE NONSENSE DAMAGING TO PUBLIC DISCOURSE.

Again, we couldn't argue with the authors evaluations, especially with FOX NEWS which is popular in Tennessee

Death of Local News

The September 7th issue of THE WEEK had an article about the death of local news and the serious impact that has on the fight against corruption.  
http://theweek.com/articles/793309/death-local-news  

It asks the question, "Do we still meed local news?" It answers, "Only if things like schools, taxes, infrastructure, and government accountability matter to you." 

In the absence of local news people are relegated to getting their information on Google, Facebook, or Twitter.  Everyone knows how accurate those sources are and how insulated they are from fake stories. 

Even worse people trust their tribal bards without challenge or fact checking.  That only increases polarization of opinions and offers credibility to the loudest voices, the fringes.  People stop listening to and learning from others who may have contrary opinions.

The problem has only been exacerbating when the most vocal are the fringe elements and confabulators that populate high levels of authority that the average person used to be able to trust.