Fake news

I’ve been cudgelling my brain over the last few weeks how to tell fake news from real news. The conclusion I have reached is that there is NO infallible way of separating fake from real. What I think we can do is find some things which are indicative, not infallible, but giving us a fair idea. Fake news is increasing and if we are not to be misled we need to worry much more about the quality of news we digest.

The first thing is to ask does the news come from a reputable source. I’ve written on this before so I won’t repeat myself. What I would add is that two or more trustworthy  independent sources much enhances the credibility of the news.

When looking at the news item you want to see if it fits with what you already know. For example Russian internet interference with democratic elections is already well known. Therefore news of a Russian troll factory fits well with what is known. However news of a British troll factory would be a major surprise and would not fit with anything we already know. Therefore we should be very suspicious that this news wasn’t real.

We should ask ourselves who benefits from fakery. Sometimes this is fairly obvious but sometimes the benefit implies some global conspiracy  without any real evidence. Climate change deniers  not only ignore the evidence but somehow suppose there is a malevolent interest in a change in society.

We should look for evidence which supports the news story. A blank statement unsupported by any evidence is suspicious. However the supporting evidence bears close examination.

For example any complex story, often some sort of conspiracy theory, can be tested using Occam’s Razor. This is a tool from  philosophy attributed to British Franciscan Friar, William of Ockham which says the simplest explanation is the best, in this context more likely to be true. This isn’t an absolute test but it is a general guide. In science it often means the simplest theory is the most easily tested and therefore the most easily found to be false. It is a usual part of conspiracy theories that they are often so complex in attempting to cover every eventuality that they can never be found to be false by any simple test.

Another item of evidence which needs to be viewed with suspicion is the use of statistics. We have heard of “Lies, Damned lies and statistics” or put another way that figures can’t lie but liars can figure. Presentation of data can be falsely argued by the simple expedient of choosing favourable periods for a time series or by quashing an axis so much that random movements appear real. A particular danger lies in analysis of statistics and never more so than in tests of significance. I count myself as a professional scientist and I was very wary of calculating significance. Even good mathematicians ( of whom I’m not one ) argue about correct estimates. In looking at the use of statistics simplicity is best.

It is human nature to string facts into a story. We naturally tend to understand a narrative and tend to manufacture one if isn’t there. Politicians in particular are fond of stringing isolated facts into a story.  Sometimes facts are random and any narrative is false.

Look for weasel words in statements. The referendum statement that we pay £350 million a week to the EU was a lie because it wasn’t complete, ignoring the £160m plus returned by the EU. It looked simple but it wasn’t. It could have been presented as our EU bill is  £350m. Still misleading but weaselled out of by ignoring the reverse payment. It was easy to say we could pay that extra £350m to the NHS. That particular slogan didn’t last 24hours after the result before it was clarified to “could but probably won’t because we can’t”.

Sometimes specialist knowledge helps. With a scientific background it is possible to see that some facts are highly unlikely because they conflict with well established physical laws. A useful adage to bear in mind is that “ extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence”. So someone claiming fairies at the bottom of their garden would need far more than photographs. Incidentally did you know that photos of fairies were produced early in the 20^th century and convinced the gullible before shown to be fakes.

This is not to say science is infallible. Deliberate fakery is rare but individuals can be deluded. For example cold fusion was sincerely proposed  but only falsified when it could not be reproduced.

In the end blind faith can be impossible to overcome. I know someone who thinks the moon landings were a fake. She ignores any evidence to the contrary. It is baffling how this arose ( although the fictional film suggesting a conspiracy probably helped ). I struggle to understand how Flat Earthers exist now the globe has been photographed from space. I’m sure they would say photographs can be easily manipulated..

Finally remember just because we cannot explain a phenomena doesn’t mean a rational explanation isn’t possible. Existing knowledge isn’t complete. However look at the evidence. For example Bigfoot has been thoroughly examined and evidence isn’t there while highly credible alternatives exist.