Fact checkers and the checking checkers who check them

Janina, Lexington KY — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 10:27:57 GMT

That Don Cruz Home story proves what me and my family have always suspected since we saw the "Widowed Mom" extreme makeover. She would still be widowed when the show is over and she will still have financial problems because it's not like she got a new job. Do those shows really help anyone?

Fact checkers and the checking checkers who check them

Jay - Blacksburg, Virginia — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 12:41:05 GMT

http://www.snopes.com/photos/boats/badlaunch.asp

Here's your boat photos link. For anything that has circulated the web, I go to Snopes.com first. They also tie into your fact-checking lead. While you're there, check out this:

http://www.snopes.com/photos/animals/gatordeer.asp

Nothing like a nice swim to beat the heat.

Fact checkers and the checking checkers who check them

Bob K, Ann Arbor, Mich — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 14:26:51 GMT

In the "computer simulation" article, there's a very telling line; an assumption worse than his primary assumption.

"But since there would be so many more virtual ancestors, any individual could figure that the odds made it nearly certain that he or she was living in a virtual world."

Let's say I can create a virtual colony of ants. They think they're real, just like the article says we would. Now let's say I make trillions of colonies of thousands of ants each. What are the odds that the ant crawling across the floor of my office is a simulation in the virtual ant-world I made? Zero. Now lets say I create many many times my original count of ants in the virtual ant-world. Have the odds changed for the ant on my floor? Nope.

I'd expect a more thoughtful explanation than from an Oxford Philosopher.

Fact checkers and the checking checkers who check them

Michael, Halifax, Canada — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 15:26:32 GMT

I am both confused and freighted by the "New father being tasered while holding his child" story.
First off, the cop with the taser should be tied to a chair and tasered, at random intervals, while blindfolded, for about a week straight. I don't care how much the new father was threatening him, or what "vulgar explative" he was yelling. I don't even care that there was a "history of domestic violence between Lewis and his wife". The simple fact is that you don't attack someone who is holding a newborn, and if you do, you should be subjected to punishment that is both cruel and unusual.
Second, what kind of idiots are being hired for the police in that area? Don't you have to have an IQ above 30 to be a police officer? Would that same police office use a taser on a child riding a tricycle without a helmet? ("Pull the tricycle over. This is your last warning. If you do not pull the tricycle over, you will be tased!") This guy is obviously an idiot and should be shot out of a cannon, directly at a brick wall (this, of course, needs to be done after the week of random tasing. Otherwise he won't learn his lesson!). Sorry for the rant, but I find stories of stupid cops infuriating. These people have the power to arrest me, and yet they don’t have the brain cells to figure out that having a newborn fall violently to the floor is a bad thing.

To Bob K: I really think you are missing the point of the article there Bob. Yes, if you create something that is virtual then it doesn’t exist in the ‘real world’. (So no, the ant walking across the floor in your hypothetical situation is not the virtual ant that you created.) The virtual ants that you created would live in a virtual world, and since you are in the real world (again, going by your hypothetical situation) you know that the ant crawling across the floor is real, and not simply a virtual construct (though, that of course assumes that you ARE in the real world, and that your ‘real world’ is not simply a virtual world created by ‘posthumans’ in the actual ‘real world’)
The point of the article is that a human would never be able to tell if they are real or virtual if we had the technology to create a virtual human (that is, a computer program that simulates how a human brain works exactly). This means that our ‘real world’ could simply be a virtual world created by another human, who himself could actually be a virtual construct. So, if you were a virtual construct, you could make a virtual construct of an ant, as per your hypothetical situation, and even though the ant that is walking across the floor is not one of the virtual ants that you created, it doesn’t necessarily mean that the ant is not a virtual construct, simply because your entire world could be a virtual construct.
Wow, that is a crazy run on sentence. The point is this: From inside the virtual world, it would be impossible to tell whether or not you were virtual or real. The people who made the virtual world would be outside the virtual world, and would know that the people in their ‘real world’ are not part of the virtual world that they created. However, they would have to realize, that if they have the power to create a virtual world where the ‘humans’ inside the world were incapable of determining whether or not they were real, that the original creators of that world could themselves be in a virtual world.
Maybe God is just a kid playing a video game. If he is, I sure hope his mom doesn’t call him for supper!

P.S. I just realized that the way I always name myself in the comments here (Michael, Halifax, Canada) pretty much states that Canada is a state in the United States. You should have more concern for your non-American readers (Or maybe I should assume that American's know enough about global geography to know that Canada is a country and not a state. Then again, after seeing that program where Americans where asked to find Iraq on a map, I don't hold out much hope)

Fact checkers and the checking checkers who check them

Clint, Chicago, Illinois — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 17:21:46 GMT

The computer simulation philosophy reminds me of logical arguments I've heard proving alien species can't be wandering the galaxy. The logic goes that if it were possible for alien life to roam around in flying saucers, then it surely would have happened at some point in the 14-billion-year history of the universe. Chances are astronomical, then, that aliens who developed millions or even billions of years before us would have long ago visited and inhabited any available planets, perhaps even preventing evolution of local life. The fact that we exist and that we aren't slaves of an alien empire proves that UFOs can't exist.

Thus, I tend to think Einstein was right about faster-than-light travel ... or else we're really living in an alien zoo.

Fact checkers and the checking checkers who check them

DOC, Houston Texas — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 19:36:38 GMT

Hi Will, great post as usual.

I am in Houston (and an expecting first time father) who picked up this story back in April when it happened.

My wife is planning on delivering our baby at that very hospital (supposedly it is one of the best women's hospitals in the country.)

I asked my wife's OB/GYN about the story some time ago. According to the doctor the woman was with another man in the hospital. The father got upset and was taking the baby away from mom, which is quite different than the article suggests.

Never the less, this causes great fear in my mind. I have no intention of getting a Social Security Number for my son. I understand that the hospital will not LET you leave with YOUR OWN CHILD unless you do sign the necessary forms for a SSN. My wife and I have already arranged for our attorney to be present when we leave the hospital, I hope you don't see me in the news getting tazered.

Keep up the good work.

Fact checkers and the checking checkers who check them

Will Femia — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 19:59:52 GMT

Thanks Jay. I tried Snopes but couldn't find the right search terms.

Michael, I'm confident that at least Clicked readers know what Canada is.

DOC, holy moly, good luck with that. Is there a precedent for not getting an SS number? I don't recal having read anything about it.

Fact checkers and the checking checkers who check them

Jay - Blacksburg, Virginia — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 20:16:13 GMT

I simply meant that Snopes is good at fact-checking. Whenever I get any sort of suspicious sounding email, I always check there first. It stops a lot of hoaxes and urban legends in their tracks in my office.

Fact checkers and the checking checkers who check them

KW — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 20:18:16 GMT

Bob K, et al,
Let's see if I can put this in terms 'netizens care about...Short answer is don't fall for Oxford professor Jedi mind tricks. Long answer is that I sincerely doubt our subject "Oxford professor" (no time to validate his credentials, since, my posts to the contrary, I do have a life) has any real-world experience creating actual software that has been tested against what exists in the real world. In the real world (where we try to create software that models things that exist in the real world...recursive wording intentional) many of the design flaws of some of the best software are rooted in how incredibly difficult this is to do. I could go on and on connecting this all back to previous discussions involving Drs. Hiesenberg and Schrodinger, but nobody really wants to revist that again, do we Will?

A better use of the professor's time (and please, Mr. Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, Earth, Sun, Milky Way, Universe-that-exits-in-a-microbe-on-the-butt-of-a-crustacean-in-the-bottom-of-a-sea-in-an-even-larger-universe feel free to join in) would be to debate whether or not the "angles dancing on the head of a pin" (oops, excuse me, make that "point of a needle") argument ever took place. Graduate students can debate if a camel could possibly pass through the eye of said needle without disturbing the angels' dance competition. Starting point provided in the following link:

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a4_132.html

Fact checkers and the checking checkers who check them

Dennis — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 21:20:19 GMT

The whole computer simulation thing assumes that the mind doesn't really exist, that we are essentially just machines and our minds are only complex computers. This assumption finds itself on weaker and weaker ground almost daily.

Fact checkers and the checking checkers who check them

Carol, Florida — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 22:38:39 GMT

I have to chime in regarding snopes.com. Everyone should have it bookmarked. I used to have a few friends and family members who would forward every loony frantic warning, conspiracy theory, Microsoft-will-pay-you-for-every-email-you-forward, wacko email that appeared in their inboxes. Every time, I politely directed them to snopes.com, until finally they started checking it for themselves. It has cut down by about 95% the amount of ridiculous email forwards I get. The site is run by a married couple, and they should get a medal for the service they perform.

Fact checkers and the checking checkers who check them

Michael T, Hollywood, CA — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 22:39:49 GMT

"The whole computer simulation thing assumes that the mind doesn't really exist, that we are essentially just machines and our minds are only complex computers. "

What a totally ridiculous assumption that is. It has absol0tely no ba1sis0 in rea00011010101 01010111111 0001010001101101011 001011111000101 :)

Fact checkers and the checking checkers who check them

Clint, Chicago, Illinois — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 23:18:31 GMT

Canada ... isn't that a kind of cola product, like ginger ale or something?

Fact checkers and the checking checkers who check them

Alex, Lawrence, KS — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 23:47:25 GMT

Show me the toothbrush with built-in floss and then I'll be impressed.

Fact checkers and the checking checkers who check them

Dennis McClain-Furmanski, Dalworthington Gardens, Texas — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 01:17:58 GMT

Checking facts, or in fact just playing checkers?

The same AP that issued the fact checking article issued the following: "They know the drill; they’re familiar with it,” said Ruben Dimas, assistant store manager at a Home Depot in Harlingen."

This is obviously a story about power tools, right? Wrong. It's in the AP article presently attached to MSNBC's front page regarding a tropical storm headed for the Texas coast, and the residents preparing for it. It's a pretty good joke, but it's on AP. In their feverish focus on facts, AP has forgotten to pay attention to what they're actually saying, a major media mistake. I want to know who, in fact, pays their checks.

Fact checkers and the checking checkers who check them

Will Femia — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 02:20:33 GMT

Carol, the only caveat I'd add to your advice is that I once received on of those billion-people-on-the-to:-line e-mails alerting everyone to a Web hoax. I thought I'd be helpful and "reply all" with the snopes link. I ended up getting tons of spam, bounce-back mails, out of office notes... I should have just deleted it.

Fact checkers and the checking checkers who check them

Thu, 16 Aug 2007 13:29:00 GMT

About the Computer Simulation
Isn't this theoretical? We're not saying someone will create a computer program that models the real world tomorrow, or that there aren't significant obstacles in the way of the technology. We're just saying, hypothetically, if we COULD create a
virtual world with virtual humans that behave as real humans do, and who truly believe that they are real (just as we do) that there would then be no way to PROVE that we ourselves are not virtual constructs in another, more advanced culture's computer simulation. Dr. Bostrom goes further and says that it is not just possible, but likely, that we will either A) Die off before we achieve the level of technology possible to do this; OR B) We will live long enough and become advanced enough to create this technology, but won't for social or moral reasons; OR C) There is a good possibility that posthumans have already created this technology and that we ourselves are part of a computer simulation.

KW, I realize that this Oxford professor doesn't come off very well, especially because he seems to like tying arbitrary numbers to his hypothesis (20%? Where the heck did that come from?), but that does not mean that his hypothesis is automatically invalid or that his credentials are questionable. I think his whole idea is quite interesting. But, as KW somewhat implied, there is no more a way to prove his hypothesis then there is to prove that we are not simply a "Universe-that-exits-in-a-microbe-on-the-butt-of-a-crustacean-in-the-bottom-of-a-sea-in-an-even-larger-universe". And, quite frankly, learning the answer to either of these questions would not change our reality even one iota.

To the Americans:
I realize that most Americans are not idiots who know nothing of the world beyond their borders. However, when I was approx 15 years old (about 10 years ago) I traveled to California for my uncle's wedding. I met a lot of "'mericans" there and I couldn't believe the number of them who hadn't even heard of Nova Scotia ("What kinda country is that?"), and who couldn't name one province in Canada other than Ontario (and many of these were my uncle's friends and my uncle is from New Brunswick!).
Heck, I had one guy ask me how to build an igloo and he wouldn't believe me when I said that I didn't live in one ("My Dad went to Canadas when he was a lad, and he told me that yall live in igloos all year round." ) (The 's' in Canada is intentional, as is the 'yall') I realize I didn't make myself any friends implying that American's are geographically illiterate, but my real point was about how American's seem to be really big on where people come from inside their own country and tend to exclude people from outside their country arbitrarily. If you look at the comment section on blogs on sypatico.msn.ca (the Canadian version of MSN.com) you will see that they simply ask for your name, not your name, city and province. Remember, we live in a global community (at least on the web) and I find the implication that only American's should comment on the blog to be, well, rude.

A question for you KW: How would looking up a professor's credentials prevent you from having a life? If Dr. Bostrom's credentials were in question, it would give your argument a boost. The funniest part though, is that if you type "Dr. Bostrom Oxford" into Google you will immediately get a link to his home page that tells you all about his credentials.

Nick Bostrom
Director, Future of Humanity Institute, Oxford University

His website is here: http://www.nickbostrom.com/ ,
and if you go to the bottom of the middle column in the middle section of his page, you will find the article he wrote about this subject.

P.S. It took me less than 5 minutes to get this information. It is irresponsible of you to imply that Dr. Bostrum's credentials are questionable (or that he is not really an "Oxford professor"), just because your gut feeling is that they are, and because you are too lazy to check them out.

Fact checkers and the checking checkers who check them

KW — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 13:56:44 GMT

Hey, Will...speaking of fact checking, I thought you might find the following roundup of media scandals post-worthy...

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/08/its_not_just_scott_beauchamp.html

Fact checkers and the checking checkers who check them

Kate, Queens, NY — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 14:17:18 GMT

"Show me the toothbrush with built-in floss and then I'll be impressed."

http://www.reachaccess.com/home.html

I use it every day -- i can't floss otherwise!

Fact checkers and the checking checkers who check them

Carol, Florida — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 15:12:47 GMT

Dennis, am I missing something? "The same AP that issued the fact checking article issued the following: "They know the drill; they’re familiar with it,” said Ruben Dimas, assistant store manager at a Home Depot in Harlingen." That just means that the people waiting for the tropical storm have been through it all before and know what to do. "They know the drill" is a very common figure of speech -- it doesn't have anything to do with power tools. Drill in this case refers to an exercise -- like a military drill or fire drill. Or am I completely misunderstanding your point?

Fact checkers and the checking checkers who check them

DOC, Houston Texas — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 16:51:25 GMT

Just getting back on your comment.
Post if you want.

According to my attorney:
There is no law that says a citizen must have a SSN.
There is a Texas Law that all births must be registered with the State (not Federal).
I am told that I cannot get a deduction for a dependent child without the child having a SSN, but other than that there are not other ramifications, my insurance company will carry him without a number, etc...

My reasoning is this:
Getting a SSN is permanent, there is no going back. Once you have one, it might as well be branded on your forehead.

I plan to let my son choose whatever 'religion' he likes; not to force my (or anyone eles') religious or political views on him. So if he turns 18 and wants a SSN he can get one. I will not force him into something that cannot be undone.

Fact checkers and the checking checkers who check them

Justin, Washington DC — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 18:52:53 GMT

The article saying that we are all in some big computer simulation doesn't seem to have any convincing qualities. That's not to say there is or isnt any truth to his claim, but his "reasonable hypothosis" seems pretty unreasonable to me.

If I read it correctly he states, that if humans can create a computer program that could exactly simulate the earth then we most deffinatly are in a simulated world ourselves. His logic seems to go from point A to point C skipping point B.

From there it seems the assumptions keep piling up, like what sort of values and morals these designers would have, and if it's possible to escape this "simulation" to the "real world".

While it might be interesting to consider briefly, I don't see much more reason at this time.

The one redeaming quality this article does present is a discusion on the morality of ending sentient non biological life (or creating it).

Well who knows, maybe we are all a computer program and one day we'll realize it and pull a Sky Net on them (asta la vista, baby!)