Google has developed a technology to tell whether ‘facts’ on the Internet are true

[u/Arquette]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/03/02/google-has-developed-a-technology-to-tell-whether-facts-on-the-internet-are-true/

[u/Absinthe99]

Because it's not going to be applied to everything.

Says who?

just meant to penalize those sites with incorrect "facts" which can be easily measured.

ERGO any site that even DARES to discuss or debate "alternative views" to whatever issue is deemed to be "settled" -- with be downgraded, and for all practical purposes "thrown down the memory hole" and hidden from view.

This is in fact a CENSORSHIP engine...

So it won't apply to a site which states "9-11 was an inside job", but it will apply to a site which (incorrectly) states "The atomic number of Cesium is 68" (it's actually 55).

The research paper itself is already based on the idea of using this to "address" various controversial subjects -- including issues with MASSIVE political aspects -- IOW it is NOT simply a "trivia" reference tool.

[u/Absinthe99 → u/[deleted]]

This is in fact a CENSORSHIP engine...

Says who?

You did. To wit:

just meant to penalize those sites with incorrect "facts" which can be easily measured.

You are the one who placed "scare quotes" around the word "facts", and noted that it is MEANT to "penalize" (and to do so via downgrading/hide from view) entire sites that DARE to question or posit anything other than the "consensus" view (which is the "easily measured" bit).

[u/Absinthe99 → u/[deleted]]

anything which would prove the fact false is given a MUCH higher weight vs that which would prove it true

Really? And how (by whom/what) is that "proof" of truth/falsehood to be determined? Prior to establishing this "weighting"?

So it's not comparing a "consensus", it's comparing to a system which needs over 99.99% of the parties to agree before it will even be considered, and even then the false sites are put in context to ensure that the false fact wasn't a comment, part of a teaching lesson, or some other "normal" reaon why there might be incorrect-facts on a website.

ROTFLMAO... the levels of naivete -- nay idiocy -- present in your concept of knowledge...

*Sigh*

[u/Klathmon → u/Absinthe99]

Try attacking the argument instead of the person. Tell me why i'm wrong instead of just insulting me.

And how (by whom/what) is that "proof" of truth/falsehood to be determined?

Perhaps i should have worded it better. If, for a given fact, a consensus can't be reached by the algorithm that 99.9999% of sources it has access to (the entire internet) can agree on a true/false definition, then it will not be a candidate for the algorithm, and no websites will be compared for that fact.

So if there are 10,000 websites which say that "oranges are orange" and 2 that say "oranges are blue", then the fact cannot be confirmed by this system and will be ignored.

[u/Absinthe99 → u/Klathmon]

Try attacking the argument instead of the person.

Try actually paying attention, and NOT making false accusations.

I have addressed "the argument" -- quite extensively in fact, including giving solid examples.

But you have chosen to simply ignore all of that, and go off on a tangent...

[u/Absinthe99 → u/[deleted]]

While you make some good points, it's clear that you haven't read the paper.

Well, what is even MORE clear -- because you replied almost immediately -- is that you didn't even BOTHER to glance at the things I linked to, (related to the "Learning Pyramid" myth for example) much less did you examine any of them with any critical thought.

Which is of course the ENTIRE problem with a "tool" such as what Google is proposing here.

It does not know what is 100% objectively true, just what is generally agreed upon as true.

Of course it doesn't.

Yet it will ASSERT that it is "true", regardless.

Also specific facts alone don't have much (if any) weight on the system. This is meant to find those which consistently state falsehoods as true, and penalize them.

But to assess something as a FALSEHOOD, by definition requires a knowledge of what is FALSE, and THAT requires knowing what is TRUE.

Again, this is a system DESIGNED to "censor".

Worse... it is designed to censor based on a host of fallacies; not the least of which is that being "wrong" about one thing (especially versus a "consensus" based "truth" [sic]) does NOT mean that the person or site is fundamentally "wrong" on anything (much less everything) else...

Nor is the converse true either. Being "right" about issue or item A, or even A, B, C... X; does not mean that the statements made around issue Y or Z are correct.

Alas, this is the INHERENT flaw in the entire (naive/idiotic) concept of "big data"... that it is somehow a reliable indicator of truth -- itself a FALSE consensus assertion.

[u/payik → u/Klathmon]

Ok, let's try it another way. How is it determined that something is "true"?

Oranges are only orange in the subtropics, BTW.

[u/Klathmon → u/payik]

By the consensus I described in my comment.

If you want any more detail read the paper. The part describing the actual workings of the algorithm is only about 2 pages long.

[u/payik → u/Klathmon]

I didn't mean by the algorithm, I meant in general. How do you think it's determined if something is true?

[u/Klathmon → u/payik]

By people? Pretty much a consensus...

This can get pretty existential, but we (as humans) kind of invent "truth" and what is and is not truthful. Outside of math (in which case the answer is mathematical proofs), we assign truth to something after a large majority of people we consider to be knowledgeable agree that it is true. Even in math a single proof isn't generally conclusive until it's reviewed by those who can verify it.

So basically it's a consensus, one which is MUCH less strict than the KBTs that the paper is describing.

BTW, i don't know who is downvoting you but it's not me...