Spot check: Politi-Psychotics (Updated)

Karen Street has continued to publish what I trust is predominantly a load of nonsense at her "Politi-Psychotics" blog.  Since she's made a bit of noise at FaceBook on the topic of PolitiFact's Lie of the Year (2010), I'm giving her another chance to show that she can treat a topic without turning it into an offering to the gods of idiocy.

It's a good idea to read PolitiFact's story about its "Lie of the Year" for 2010 as well as my critique of it prior to considering Street's critique critique.

True to form, Street gets off on the wrong foot:

But what is precisely meant by “government take-over” according to PolitiFact? Bryan dismissed PolitiFact’s evidence with “PolitiFact has no fact-based case for the importance of its chosen ‘Lie of the Year’”, but never really provided his own, instead, offering his own opinion: “The claim that increased government control does not constitute a government takeover amounts to Reinhardt's opinion” or “Private insurance will come under greater government control through the new legislation, and it is fair to call newly instituted regulatory powers as a taking.”

It's irrelevant whether I provide any meaning to "government takeover."  My purpose isn't to prove PolitiFact wrong about its findings but to show how PolitiFact errs in reaching its conclusions.  PolitiFact needs the evidence, not me.  Compounding the error, Street confuses the issue of the definition of "government takeover" with the issue of the importance of the alleged untruth.  PolitiFact claims it chooses the "Lie of the Year" based on its relative importance ("We're examining claims we've rated False or Pants on Fire and will choose the one that played the biggest role in the national discourse in the past year"), and that's a separate issue from the nature of the supposed lie per se.  This type of thing serves as an excellent example of why I do not regularly waste my time replying to Street's blog posts.  Fish, barrel, shoot, repeat.

Midway through the morass, Street attempts to re-establish PolitiFact's false dilemma (either socialism/single payer or "takeover" isn't even partly true), quoting me at the start:

“Private insurance will come under greater government control through the new legislation, and it is fair to call newly instituted regulatory powers as a taking.” Increased government control as government takeover is opinion, and it’s fair to call new regulatory powers as taking? No, it’s not fair to call new regulatory powers as taking. Takeover is not even a good term for other countries’ healthcare systems regarding the government’s role (although I'd bet Bryan would have you believe all other countries that have universal healthcare have government “takeovers” of it).

The mind boggles at Street's brand of nonsense.  When a government takes new powers to itself, those powers are taken.  And they are taken away from whatever entity formerly exercised them.  It's not a matter of opinion.  It's the factual conventions of language.

Note how easily Street segues from ""taking" to "takeover."  "Takeover" carries the stronger connotation of a seizure, and if I had made it my business to determine the truth of PolitiFact's charge rather than simply criticize PolitiFact's methods, I'd have called the term hyperbolic, though hyperbolic with a  solid foundation in truth based on the way people use words like "take."  It's not whether "takeover" is a "good term," as Street puts it.  It is whether applying the term is fair according to the conventions of language.  I'm reminded of my own lampoon of PolitiFact's methods, when I suggested that PolitiFact investigate the use of "nuclear option" since considerable doubt exists that changing the the application of the filibuster technique in the Senate is even a tiny bit radioactive.  Language is more flexible than many people appear to realize.

Back to Street's illegal torture of innocent logic:

(T)o answer two of the questions he put forth: “Does the legislation provide for increased government authority as he appears to grant?” No, not necessarily, because the new legislation doesn’t change things much for those already covered (which is the majority). The purpose of the insurance mandate, the crux of the bill, was to find a way to provide coverage for those who could not get insurance by mandating everyone get it, which was the insurance companies’ proposal to begin with. “And isn't an increase in government authority a takeover of that realm of authority, given that the authority came into existence with the passage of the legislation?” No, because an increase in governmental authority is not the same as a takeover. Bryan created a false choice here.

1)  "Not necessarily"?????  Street's reply is a blatant non sequitur.  It doesn't matter whether the legislation "doesn't change things much for those already covered."  So long as it changes something and that something represents an increase in the government's regulatory role, the legislation does necessarily increase government authority.  And though the degree of change isn't even important to the logic I presented, the degree of change is drastic with respect to the insurance industry.  Eliminating insurance companies' ability to refuse coverage based on pre-existing conditions, for example, fundamentally alters the very nature of health insurance.

2)  Karen's supposed answer to the second question begs the question.

All this error in the space of two paragraphs is kind of impressive, in a way.

From there, Street argues by analogy that increased regulation does not constitute a takeover.  Setting standards for the auto industry, she says, does not represent a takeover.  But why not?   Prior to national standards, the auto makers set their own standards.  The government took over that role.  And if the government took over that role then what is supposed to prevent it from being a takeover?  Without explicitly deferring to PolitiFact's argument, Street simply clones the PolitiFact mistake of insisting on a rigid definition of what constitutes a takeover.  Presumably if the government does not meet some arbitrary standard of control that Street finds suitable, then the government has not performed any sort of takeover.

I skip Street's digression into blaming insurance companies for the health care bill and Republicans for the health care reform bill's particulars.  Neither is relevant to my arguments about PolitiFact.

But I'm always interested when Street thinks she's caught me in a fallacy:

The other logic fallacy Bryan employs is to claim PolitiFact created a “straw man” of “government takeover” by equating it with socialized medicine, because “it makes little sense to charge that Republicans were working to mislead people into thinking that the reform bill instituted a single-payer system or socialized medicine.” Really?

 It's laughable, really.

I did not say that PolitiFact created its straw man because "it makes little sense to charge that Republicans were working to mislead people into thinking that the reform bill instituted a single-payer system or socialized medicine."  Street's sentence doesn't even make sense.  I charged that PolitiFact had created a straw man because PolitiFact failed to produce a shred of evidence that people understood "government takeover" in the sense that PolitiFact insisted it had to be understood.   And I had natural insight into PolitiFact's straw man fallacy through my own thought process when I heard the term "government takeover."  I never thought it meant either socialized medicine or a single-payer plan.  Street ends up with a straw man of her own as her reward for trying to catch me with one.

Street provides a "Fox & Friends" transcript in which the hosts compare the Democrats' health care reform to the British and Canadian systems.  That's fair enough, but anecdotes can't float PolitiFact's claims, particularly when the transcript offers no evidence at all that "government takeover" was taken to mean a plan like the British or Canadian ones.

Fast forward a bit past more cereal filler ...

Well, it’s just another Lil White Lie “Even Though” scenario—what Bryan White expects you to believe “even though”: ANY Democrat version of healthcare reform is a government takeover of healthcare, even though the same type of reform was prior promoted by Republicans, even though it only affects a small percent of people without insurance, even though for most people their coverage won’t change, even though Republicans wanted more strenuous "government control" in healthcare via their own tort reform proposals.

 I'd have been all for a Democrat health care reform plan that focused on tort reform and an erosion of the third-party payment dynamic that is so poisonous to cost containment.  Contrary to Street's assertion, tort reform is not a goverment takeover.  It is an adjustment of something the government has always held in its domain in our country:  the court system.  Setting award limits for damages does virtually nothing to affect the delivery of medical care except provide additional freedom for health care providers.  It's the opposite of a takeover.  It's a giving back.

 And even though dozens of well-known conservative pundits/politicians call it socialized medicine, they couldn’t possibly be trying to mislead people. And if a poll shows the majority of people believe the government has taken over healthcare (btw, isn't that called argumentum ad populum?), how did they arrive at this conclusion....could it be, could it be that it's due to hearing those dozens of well-known conservative pundits/politicians who are calling it socialized medicine?  And any increase in government regulation IS a government takeover, even though it’s been done for years without takeover, even though the regulation is often done for the collective good (as in the healthcare reform, covering people who might not be able to get insurance). Along with death panels, even though….need I go on?

1)  With dozens of "well-known conservative pundits/politicians calling it "socialized medicine" you'd think Street would have thought to give an example or two.  Oh, well.  She probably just copied the PolitiFact method.  Simply stating it makes it sufficiently true.

2)  The appeal to popularity fallacy doesn't apply to things where majority opinion actually does determine the truth of something.  For example, 90 percent of teen girls think Justin Beber is fabulous" actually does, if true, establish as true that Justin Beber is thought fabulous by a majority of that group.  Additionally, my use of the polling data was not for the purpose of establishing that the health care reform act was factually a government takeover, but to help expose the fact that PolitiFact was ignoring the way people understood the term.  As I have said before, people determine how words are understood by how people understand the words.  Dictionaries follow where common usage leads.  If people say "texting" as a verb then pretty soon it's a verb whether Merriam-Webster likes it or not.

Has anyone else noticed that Street hasn't struck upon a single valid criticism thus far?

3)  It's not a takeover because it's not a takeover begs the question.

4)  It's funny that Street should mention death panels ...

Don't go on, Karen Street.  Go on sabbatical until you've honed your critical thinking skills to the point where you don't embarrass yourself persistently.


Afters:

Street ended with what she felt was an effective critique from FaceBook commenter Bill Benson.  Her introduction is worth quoting for the sake of its subsequent comeuppance:

He obliterated Bryan's 3,000+ words with about 50, I'd say--and he probably never read Bryan's blog critique, it was just based on his Facebook comments.

 Priceless.  If Benson did read my blog post then he understood it no better than my FaceBook comments.

 Reformatting my response:

@Bill Benson, who wrote:

Feel free to argue with the weakest arguments (technically, she suggested that it could NEVER happen, and in debate class, they taught us to pounce on NEVER because that's easy to argue against).

I'll credit you, Bill, with at least not sending Carina's remark entirely down the memory hole.

Let's take what you (apparently) think may be a stronger version of Carina's argument and see how it works out:
 
"Since when does regulation equate to takeover, exactly? Oh, right (hardly (-n))ever."

Once Carina admits that it's possible for regulation to constitute a takeover, her argument is so weak as to be better left unstated. There's nothing in it to suggest that the present instance doesn't present one of the exceptions for which she allows. And *any* reasonable possibility that the present case counts leaves us reasonably questioning PolitiFact's "False" and "Pants on Fire" ratings.
 
Your pivotal argument: lotsa' people say so. Even better, lotsa' people say so after they were ...relentlessly told so by a pervasive, well-funded campaign designed by Frank Luntz.

Bill, you're missing the central point of my argument. It isn't merely that many people disagree with PolitiFact on this one. The point is that it would be very difficult for PolitiFact to show that the high number of those who agree that the reform bill amounts to a "government takeover" correlates with PolitiFact's insistence that "government takeover" means either a single-payer plan or socialized medicine. It isn't that the GOP misled people into believing the latter (no evidence was produced for that) but rather that the term "government takeover" was used to effectively communicate regarding portions of the bill that people did not like.
 
Your arguments amount to: 1) it's a takeover because it seems like one to me, 2) it's a takeover because it seems like it to other people who have been subjected to a propaganda campaign to convince them that it is, and 3) well, even if it isn't, it could/will be someday.

I've never made the first argument. Rather, I argue against PolitiFact simply assuming based on its straw man understanding of "government takeover" that the term can only reasonably mean socialized medicine or a single-payer plan. Their reasoning made use of a false dilemma. The second argument is perfectly legitimate. If a majority of people think a term means something then a critic ought to have a spectacularly good argument that the term cannot mean what those people think it means (language works based on what people perceive things to mean). PolitiFact flunked on that.

I didn't use the third argument, either. So you're one out of three and you have no good attack on my use of the one argument you correctly identified.

Street said she wishes she could have expressed her criticism like Bill did his.

This is the right place for your blog, Karen Street.


Update 9/7/2011

It turns out Karen Street wrote up a response to my critique, claiming that she gave examples of the "dozens of of well-known conservative pundits/politicians" who call(ed) ObamaCare "socialized medicine":

Yes, I must admit Bryan was absolutely right and I just copied the PolitiFact method and simply stated it (not really, he ignored my examples, see below).

Obviously we can't allow Street to get away with providing examples today while claiming credit for those examples yesterday.  Read charitably, we cannot take Street to refer to the Bachmann example as something I ignored in her post.  Any such examples need to come from the original.

So ... are there any legitimate examples in Street's original?

Of course there are!  All you have to do in order to see it is realize that the hosts on Fox News programs are well-known conservative pundits/politicians.  The co-host of Fox & Friends, Steve Doocy, is a well-known conservative pundit/politician.  So is Fox & Friends guest host Steve Johnson Jr. 

Host Brett Baier of Fox's "Special Report" program is likewise a well-known conservative pundit/politician.

I'm not sure if the quote of Media Matters is supposed to indicate if Street believes that the AP's Charles Babington is likewise a well-known conservative pundit/politician.

But at least we can add one more Fox host to the list of well-known consevative pundits/politicans:  Sean Hannity.  He said President Obama is obsessively trying to push socialized medicine, and we know by extrapolation (and maybe a little magic dust thrown in) that he means that the ObamaCare bill itself is socialized medicine.





If you believe that Sean Hannity is a pundit/politician then maybe you can believe Karen Street's claim that I ignored her examples.  But if, like me, you thought the list looked a whole lot more like a list of Fox News personalities then you'll agree that Street made her assertion without supporting evidence.

Interpretations that make a speaker or writer look silly do not ordinarily constitute charitable interpretations.

One last word regarding the meat of the argument:  Note that Street responds to a point about the way the general population understands "government takeover of healthcare" by focusing on what some Fox News personalities said and wrote--and even in those cases there was no overt description of ObamaCare as being socialistic?

Such is the way people produce evidence when the conclusion precedes the collection of the evidence.

Let's Make a (formal debate) Deal (about free will and foreknowledge)

I've recently been trying to coax "dbes02," a YouTube identity who finds omniscience and free will irreconcilable, into a formal debate.

It's not easy.

It's not enough to have the debate at a skeptical forum (my suggestion from the outset).

Dbes02 has all manner of reservations about the debate, such as asking what's the point if there is no arbiter.  So I tell him he can choose the arbiter, even suggesting that his mother could fill the role if available.  I was assuming she would be well disposed toward her son.  He doesn't care to look like the one reluctant to debate, so he tries to make the arbitration thing look like a holdup from my end:

Just to (publicly) remind you: My formal debate challenge (from Sept. 23) remains open. The Freethought and Rationalism Discussion Board remains my recommendation as the forum. You can pick the arbiter if you insist on one--that's not a concern of mine.
("I challenge you to a formal debate in that forum where you support the proposition that foreknowledge and/or predictability is fatal to libertarian free will.")

To publicly remind you - if YOU find a FRDB person to adjudicate.

If he's eager to debate then why put it on me to find the adjudicator?  I don't care who adjudicates it, so how hard can it be for me to find somebody to judge it and declare a winner?  His comment referred to a series of private messages we exchanged about the debate idea.  I challenged him to the debate and told him I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for his reply.  He counter-challenged (I guess, in a way) saying he wouldn't hold his breath waiting for me accept an adjudicated debate challenge.  Yes, his response was a bit incoherent (the debate challenge is mine to him; he had yet to make any debate challenge unless we count this one from his reply).  And why phrase it as a counter-challenge in the first place?  What's so hard about "I'll accept your challenge if the formal debate will be adjudicated" other than the commitment?

I'll offer two compatible guesses:  First and already mentioned, he doesn't want to look craven.  Second, he's a tad smitten with the idea of turning the arguments of others against them.

Turnabout can be a good technique when it is well executed.

The remainder of his above reply:

We've been 'debating' here - in a public forum. This type of debate (and even the formal ones with the likes of Craig, Hitchens, Dawkins, Lennox, etc.) is pointless - people disagree with each other. You say Swartz is right, I put a position down he's wrong. You disagree. Where's it get us?
If the world's best can't agree... what's the point. (But it's good to see you've dropped the schoolyard loutishness.)

Again, it seems tough for dbes02 to appear eager for debate when he thinks debate is pointless. It makes him look like he's readying his next excuse. So I made that clear to him:

This forum allows you too much leeway in playing games. You'll behave yourself better in a formal debate or suffer the consequences. Are you saying that you will accept the debate if *I* find somebody to arbitrate? After I gave *you* the opportunity to choose the arbiter?  If that's all that's stopping you then go register now. Or is "This type of debate ... is pointless" waiting in the wings as your next excuse?

You should know a lot about game playing. Yes, this type of debate is pointless - everything is already in writing on the internet.

His reply allows me to segue smoothly into counting his reply as a reason to engage in the debate:   He can stop my game playing in the formal venue, or at least expose it through his persuasive rhetoric to the detriment of my side of the argument.

He can't be thinking I'll be so reluctant to debate him that I will decline to find an arbiter.  Can he?

The free wheelin', double dealin' argument against free will

Bad Blogs' Blood has partly evolved into the dumping ground for non-serious argumentation in addition to its role in memorializing mere bad blogs.  Some folks just don't get around to blogging but express their bad arguments in other ways.  Like YouTube:




Since I occasionally delve into philosophical and theological issues at my main blog, I published a brief entry on the above YouTube video at Sublime Bloviations.  But the person responsible for the video, dbes02, went to such hilarious lengths to defend his work that this, if anywhere, seemed like the place to memorialize the discussion.

I began:

With this format, why post something other than your best argument? The video sets up a false premise, that if multiple choices are not equally easy then they cannot be considered free. A simple thought experiment shows this is not the case. Suppose an identical set of circumstances where outcome A occurs 99 percent of the time and outcome ~A occurs 1 percent of the time. If ~A is more difficult it does not contradict free will in that case (or else it would never happen).

dbes02 answered:

Your thought experiment fails - it begs the question, because you assume an identical set of circumstances can lead to different outcomes. But even talking about being able to predict an outcome contradicts free will. So your challenge doesn't even get off the ground.

Note that dbes02 stipulated the existence of free will for the sake of argument ("If I had free will ...").  Therefore, his initial objection that it begs the question to "assume an identical set of circumstances can lead to different outcomes" is obviously false.  But then he tries to layer the objection by supposing that merely "talking about being able to predict an outcome contradicts free will."  But that objection suffers multiple flaws.  First, supposing that the same trial will result in 99% one result and 1% another result may just as well stem from past observational data rather than prediction, unless dbes02 is promoting the ridiculous notion that any statement of propositional truth about the future--even in merely hypothetical worlds--constitutes a prediction.  More on that later.  Second, the objection rests on an entirely different and controversial proposition, that free will and foreknowledge are incompatible.  It turns out that the YouTube argument rests on an unstated set of controversial premises.

The conversation continued:

lol
How do I supposedly beg the question?
Your argument appears to consistently boil down to your own fallacious begging of the question: You're assuming determinism every chance you get. Have a look at your argument from the YouTube video you posted. Do you see "determinism" either specific or implied in the argument? It's not there. But as soon as your argument is criticized it magically appears.

If all you can come up with are red herrings and flawed arguments, you have got nowhere. Even if identical circumstances led to the same outcome 99% of the time you have appealed to predictability and hence contradicted free will.

Please come up with something coherent - youtube is already treating you as spam!

Note that dbes02's response simply restates his (second) objection without addressing my reply, other than to imply with his opening if/then statement that I'm guilty of at least one red herring fallacy and/or at least one flawed argument.  What makes the argument flawed and/or a red herring?  Perhaps the fact that he insists that his objection is valid.  He drops his first objection in this response, perhaps realizing his mistake and declining to admit it.

It's neither a red herring nor a flawed argument to point out the *fact* that you did not include any presumption of determinism in your video argument. Playing "dial-a-fallacy" after you're caught posting a ridiculous question-begging argument is the red herring. Back to the drawing board with your argument, Champ.

Yes, if I had free will every choice would be just as easy to make. But they aren’t. So are you going to actually show where the fallacy is instead of your chest beating? You're the one who raised determinism in your flawed thought experiment. Please present a coherent position. Your presence here is wearing thin.

Note again in dbes02's response that he does not address the point of attack.  He restates the premise of the YouTube argument in language almost suggesting that he thinks I expressed agreement with it ("Yes, if I had free will every choice would be just as easy to make").  He follows that with a fallacy of the complex question, falsely assuming in his query that I did not specify the fallacy.  He then suggests that I raised determinism in the thought experiment, apparently based on the belief that probabilistic outcomes represent a particular prediction about the future--itself a baseless notion.

After this point, the conversation no longer appears in the company of dbes02's video, for he apparently exercised his prerogative in deleting subsequent comments.  However, he continued to reply to my posts, which left me a partial record of the exchanges via e-mail.  Before that behind-the-scenes look at the ensuing argument, however, have a look at a portion of dbes02's YouTube profile (in italics to distinguish it from the flow of the argument):

And how do many theists on YouTube deal with atheists making comments on their videos, criticising their position? Many of them censor comments, not letting anything they don't like through. Ever see 'Pending Approval'? Only on a theist's channel (in my experience so far).

How dare those theists censor comments!  Though to be fair, dbes02 did himself no favors by leaving intact my three comments above.

Now on to the unpublicized part of the show:

dbes02 has replied to your comment on Incoherence of Free Will:

@crowtreboot Your thought experiment was flawed, as shown before.
Clearly you haven't heard of a reductio ad absurdum argument.

Now run away little boy. You are out of your league here.

You can reply back by visiting the comments page.

Again, the same pattern:  dbes02 repeats original assertion without addressing the reply.  And perhaps he thinks I have never heard of reductio ad absurdum.   It's at least true that I detect from him no riposte that qualifies as a reductio ad absurdum.  Coming up with hidden premises like predictability entails determinism certainly doesn't count, even if we cut him a break on the erroneous assumption that probabilistic outcomes entail predictability.

Another round of the same:

dbes02 has replied to your comment on Incoherence of Free Will:

@crowtreboot Your 99% ploy shows predictability - which contradicts free will. Now run away little boy if you don't have anything new to say.

You can reply back by visiting the comments page.

So, dbes02's original argument depends (at least in part) on an unstated premise that we must take as true:  Predictability entails determinism.

And note the (if/then) premise of the YouTube argument:

• If I had free will it would be just as easy to choose to strangle my 8 year old daughter as to choose to hug her.

After we scrape below the surface, it turns out that the premise contains as an unstated premise the idea that predictability entails determinism.  The only way free will could obtain under his premise is if outcomes were entirely random and not merely probabilistic.  And dbest02's justification for his premise in answer to my objection was essentially to restate the premise as its own justification--in other words circulus in demonstrando--the circular argument.

The Street to perdition: An induction ceremony

At Sublime Bloviations, my preferred spot for blogging, I maintain a special blogroll dedicated to what I see as the best of liberal opinion, or at least liberal opinion presented capably.

And if you had told me a few months ago that Karen Street, who regularly comments at PolitiFact's FaceBook page had a political blog, I'd have given consideration to the idea that it belonged on that list--what I call the Sith blogroll.

But Karen Street's blog has found its way to a different list instead:  The Bad Blogs' Blood Bloody Bad Blogs Blogroll.

It's not enough to make the Bloody Bad Blogs Blogroll by simply making a fanblog of Sublime Bloviations, even if it's lame in various respects.

The BBB Blogroll is intended for those blogs that manifest bad reporting and bad thinking as a prominent feature, and Karen Street's "Politi-Psychotics" establishes impressive standards in both respects.

The induction ceremony will consist of an evaluation of Street's defense of Joe Biden and PolitiFact with respect to the former's partition plan for Iraq.  After that I'll provide just a few of the many outstanding examples of bankrupt thinking that earn Politi-Psychotics its rightful place at Bad Blogs' Blood.

Politi-Psychotics: Making the road to truth an obstacle course

Karen Street's infant blog has an "about" page, and it provides an excellent starting place for fundamental criticism of her work.

I had (...) decided it might be worth quantifying the rulings that PolitiFact gives. It was a way (in my view) to take them one step further: the best way to review a person’s rulings is individually because it’s important to see all the nuances, but calculating averages can give you a better view of that person among peers, and from one group to another (Democrats versus Republicans). So that is another part of my blog, called Politi-Score.

Projects like Politi-Score are useful for partisan game-playing and little else.  Selection bias renders the calculated averages worthless for every scientific inquiry other than measuring PolitiFact's selection bias (more on that here).

More from Street:

I (...) realized that there were several patterns emerging.  One of those is the “six guidelines” or reasons which are referred to in the “Grading PolitiFact” condensed “Critique the Critique” matrix. These are common, general reasons for issues I have noticed seem to manifest with each critique.

Apparently this means that Street thought of ways to systematically excuse PolitiFact.  Let's see how they stack up:

Reason (1) “That’s not what we SAID we were looking for." What is PolitiFact’s (PF) method and goal in determining the truth of the fact? Do they state it in the article? If the person says we are not checking the underlying argument, just the statement, then Bryan’s claims are moot as to *ignoring the underlying argument.* PolitiFact may have implicitly stated it was not checking that in the article. And vice versa.

1)  When the PolitiFact author says only the literal truth of the statement will be checked it does not render my criticism moot.  Rather, it provides compelling evidence that I am correct that the underlying argument was ignored.  When PolitiFact examines the underlying argument in some cases but not in others this tends to translate to unequal application of standards and results in selection bias.  A fact check should always employ the same standards regardless.  That is the surest way to help ensure objectivity.  Layered instances of selection bias increase the likelihood that political bias will taint the results.

Reason (2) “We can’t go there.” Would checking *caveats* or *giving a more charitable interpretation* force PF to move into ideological territory, which again, is precisely what it doesn’t want to do?

2)  Employing the same standards every time (see #1), including by always checking caveats and always employing the principle of charitable interpretation represent the best way of keeping PolitiFact from moving into ideological territory.  When PolitiFact repeatedly fails to apply equal standards it brings into question whether entering ideological territory "is precisely what it doesn’t want to do."

Reason (3) “What is the focus of‘charitable’?” What is the agenda of Bryan’s frequent use of words charitable and uncharitable? Amusingly and ironically, according to the hesaurus, one of the words that can be used to replace *charitable* is *liberal.* Charitable also means “open handed” “sympathetic” and/or *helpful.* An antonym is “unforgiving.” Charitable can also be construed as, FAVORABLE. Bryan wants a more FAVORABLE interpretation….so, to what ends? Again, implying a more favorable interpretation should have been employed….favorable to who or what? Because making a more “charitable” interpretation might shift us into reason (2)—We can’t go there because it’s too ideological.

3)  These "reasons" trend toward inquisition, don't they?  The goal of charitable interpretation is obtaining the best understanding of an attempt to communicate. Where I advocate charitable interpretation for all (which I do), the agenda is the best understanding of whoever happens to be writing or speaking.

Reason (4) “Too much information.” Does PolitiFact limit the length (number of words) of its article/ evaluations? Because providing all the context and detail (“to support the underlying argument” as Bryan might say) Bryan demands might not be possible. This is the reason I include a word count for the article on the condensed critique table.

4)  Obviously space is a consideration for journalists even on the Internet (and that goes triple or more for print).  On the other hand, I do not ask for exhaustive ("all the context and detail") presentation of context.  I simply point out such things as places where additional context significantly changes the picture.  And there are ways of communicating an accurate picture, or at least a more accurate picture, without offending restrictions on space.  If Karen ever asserts that my demands aren't possible it is reasonable to expect a demonstration.  I doubt that a suitable case will ever occur.

Reason (5) “This is AS IS--NO returns.” If a pundit or politician makes a statement and then corrects it, should PolitiFact stand with its rating of the original statement even when the pundit or politician makes the correction? For example, when Rudolph Guiliani made the gaffe of saying that there were no attacks on America under G.W. Bush, Bryan wrote in his synopsis “…Sharockman's failure to note Giuliani's full explanation is nearly as perplexing as Giuliani's failure to make explicit note of the 9-11 attacks during his GMA comments. And contrary to Sharockman's opinion, Giuliani's explanation is quite defensible.” So, would going with Bryan’s opinion of Guiliani’s explanation make it any less biased?

5)  Another question!  The answer is "That depends."  In a case like Giuliani's, charitable interpretation should have made it clear both that he know of and viewed as an exception to his remarks the 9-11 attacks.  Aside from that, charitable interpretation obligates us to accept any reasonable interpretation, including the reasonable one offered by Giuliani.  Sharockman's dismissal of Giuliani's explanation was not reasonable, and was just as amenable to evaluation as Giuliani's statements.  As a result, the answer to Street's final question is yes, because my supposed "opinion" of the reasonableness of Giuliani's explanation was based on sound reason while Sharockman's was not.  Street's question contained a false premise.  Naughty, naughty.  If it's all opinion then there's no such thing as "PolitiFact."  Let them rename it "PolitOpinion."

Reason (6) “What the hell do you expect, anyway?” Too much “DIPing”—Demanding Impossible Perfection….What would a reasonable expectation be of conclusions reached by an organization such as PolitiFact when evaluating statements by political figures? Do claims of possible ideological bias or journalistic errors or omissions as noted by one who IS biased invalidate the stated goal of their work? We read the complaints coming from both sides of the aisle, that PF is too left wing or too right wing. This should in and of itself prove they are not biased, or at least *trying* not to be. Even Bryan admits their bias is unintentional (and his own, intentional); so what does he expect them to do? There’s always going to be a certain small amount of subjectivity present. Bryan is also critical of their journalistic technique, but that should be a separate issue.  If journalistic technique was a complaint that is problematic for a website, then the majority of right wing and left-wing websites have serious issues as well. So we can’t trust him as the judge of this.

6)  Please excuse Street's overlap with her reason #4.  Everyone is biased, so the claim that anyone is unbiased is the most suspicious claim.  And anyone of any level of bias can attempt to provide unbiased reporting.  PolitiFact flouts the standards of objective reporting regularly (adverbs, snark); it is through the behavior that one judges the bias in reporting, not simply by noting the bias of the authors at the outset.  "We read the complaints coming from both sides of the aisle, that PF is too left wing or too right wing. This should in and of itself prove they are not biased, or at least *trying* not to be."  I encounter this fallacy with astonishing regularity.  Indeed, it is exceptionally common coming from journalists.  Most comments come from the extremes on any position (those nearer the center of the bell curve tend to care insufficiently to express themselves).  Criticism from both sides does not indicate a lack of bias.  It simply indicates that people may be found both left and right of the view expressed.  I have criticism from the left and from the right.  That does not remove my bias.  It doesn't even reasonably suggest that I'm trying to be unbiased.  It's long past time to put this mistake to rest forevermore.

Worth repeating:

If journalistic technique was a complaint that is problematic for a website, then the majority of right wing and left-wing websites have serious issues as well. So we can’t trust him as the judge of this.

If what a majority of right wing and left wing Web sites do invalidates my judgment then it also invalidates Street's judgment ... so we can't trust Street to judge that I can't be trusted as the judge.  Street has achieved self-stultification with admirable aplomb.


Summary:

In sum we have six obstacles placed on the road to truth courtesy of Karen Street.  In each case, she would discourage the application of the best standards of judgment by providing excuses for the uneven application of standards.


What good is a blog that fundamentally opposes its own supposed purpose?  Certainly a blog like that is what Bad Blogs' Blood was created to recognize.


Afters: 


I offer thanks to Street for her charitable evaluation of my humble talents (referring to portions of the "about" page I did not elect to quote).  If Street is not capable of doing a considerably better job with her blog than I am seeing thus far, then it counts against my judgment of her capabilities.  I look forward to better work in the near future, hopefully including an extensive revision of the "about" page at Politi-Psychotics.

Who's the liar?

As mentioned in a recent post, Karen Street of PolitiFact/Facebook/commentary infamy has started a blog that occasionally attempts to tackle an occasional of my Sublime Bloviations.  And that blog is not the place to publish this type of play time.

The subject:  The second in Street's fledgling series "Lil' White Lies," which affords us yet another opportunity to ask:  Where's the supposed lie?

Street had her answer to the first post in the series via a comment to her blog.  She has eradicated blog commentary in her domain, so that's the end of that conversation.

The second in the series concerns a criticism I made of Robyn "Blumñata" Blumner, editorial columnist extraordinaire at the St. Petersburg Times.  Blumner plays ventriloquist's dummy for Barry Ritholtz, who argues that the Community Reinvestment Act was not a significant factor in the subprime mortgage crisis.  I posted my disagreement with Ritholtz's thesis and referred readers to the work of John Carney for further explanation/exploration.

Street took issue:

The basis of Bryan’s contention of Blumner “buying” Ritholtz’s faulty reasoning was a critique by John Carney of Business Insider. This is the John Carney who wrote this article at the website American Conservative where he stated “We’re the backbench of a minority.”

A)  The basis of my contention was not Carney's work but the fact (plainly expressed by me) that many subprime mortgages are not at the same time CRA loans, so Ritholtz reasoning that CRA banks would more often fold as the crisis deepened is, in logical terms, a non sequitur based on a faulty premise.

B)  Perhaps Street wants to imply that getting published in the American Conservative makes Carney right-wing enough to discredit his arguments.  Perhaps that's why she neglected to mention that Carney's article in the American Conservative attacked the relative lack of content in the typical bestselling books by conservatives such as Mark Levin, Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity.  If that was not Street's intention then it is difficult to discern a useful purpose in her second sentence above.

But did John Carney actually “specifically debunk Ritholtz’s objection”?

"(D)ebunk" is obviously my judgment, and I stand behind it based on what is written above and in my original post.  Carney wrote in response to (Barry) Ritholtz on the same issue Blumner mentioned in her column:

As much as I respect Barry’s formidable analytical powers, I’m afraid he’s taken too narrow of the view of the matter. His question is far easier to answer than he suspects.

Street offers no reasonable evidence to refute Carney's argument (or mine, for that matter).

He supposedly “debunked” it with three points as to how the CRA created more lax lending standards which “spread” to other lenders…I will try to address each point.  Here you can also read a little more about Carney's "bizarre crusade" against the CRA.

Before moving on to see how Street tries to deal with Carney's argument, it's worth noting her attempt (probably the second such) to discredit Carney with irrelevant attacks.  She also posted the incorrect link to Carney's three points (rookie bloggers ...).  The right one is here.

Three points:

1)  Street claims (minus citation) artificial demand for subprime loans would have required more regulation by the Bush administration (non sequitur; ignores long-term development of the subprime market).  She adds (again without citation) that the Office of Thrift and Supervision was a "'captured agency'" preventing (for example) that type of regulation (captured for how long?).  Finally, she cites Bhutta and Canner claiming that CRA loans accounted for an insufficient percentage of loan sales in 2006 to have significantly influenced the crisis.  But that simply misses the thrust of Carney's argument and again ignores the long term nature of the growing subprime market as well as Carney's bond sales argument.  Street employs a kind of MXC/wall buggers argument:  Have Japanese people covered in velcro rope-swing at a velcro-covered wall and hope one of them sticks.

2)  Street handwaves Carney's point that the threat of regulation may have similar effects to regulation by repeating her unsupported claim that bankers were not concerned with regulation during the Bush administration.  That notion overlooks the obvious fact that Bush only served four years at a time.  Banking behavior that creates a ruckus always draws the attention of government, even if the legislation or regulation is as much as four years away.  It also overlooks the fact that Congress wields more power than the presidency.  Witness the fact that TARP, enacted under Bush, placed a heavy federal hand on banks.

3)  Street needs to learn that it counts as plagiarism to quote material verbatim without in some clear manner acknowledging that it comes from somebody else.  Street uses an unattributed quotation of Carney then follows with another non sequitur:

This means that the banks should have led the way and started the subprime offerings earlier than the mortgage companies. According to Mike Konszal, financial engineer, “I’ve never seen a data set that pass[ed] this hurdle.”

Konszal obviously needs to assume that Carney's "quickly" needs to be slow enough to permit his proposed measure to detect the difference.  Konsal achieves that by adding straw-filled limbs to the body of Carney's argument, resulting in a Frankensteinian straw man.

Add it all up and tell me:  Who's the liar and where's the lie?



Sept. 9, 2010:  Removed a redundant "attempt" in the paragraph preceding "Three points."

Politi-Score

Why waste perfectly good space at Sublime Bloviations dealing with the comments of crackpots?

Great question, if I do say so myself.

That problem accounted in part for the creation Bad Blogs' Blood.

As noted at Sublime Bloviations, one Karen Street created a political blog with a significant emphasis on PolitiFact and my criticisms thereof.  Street disabled commentary on her blog (eliminating a handful of comments I had posted), or else I would not bother posting about this at all; I'd simply leave a comment at Street's Politi-Psychics (sp).

Today's bee-in-the-bonnet tale concern's Street's "Politi-Score" project.  She uses an Excel spreadsheet to collect data on individuals whose statements are rated by PolitiFact.

Street read a post I created in response to a PolitiFact story by Bill Adair.  Adair posted some data in his story similar to Street's, so I made the connection:

Folks like Karen Street are thinking "So, what's the problem?  Glenn Beck tends to fudge the truth."

Bee, meet bonnet:

Bryan White objected yesterday in his blog that my calculations are not scientific….where did I ever say they were? The fact is even trying to do it scientifically would be wrought with the quandaries of the same selection bias of which he speaks. Not just selecting samples, but judging those samples.

I wrote nothing at all about Street's calculations.  I identified the selection of stories as unscientific because of the obvious selection bias.  Street is doing the math, not the selection.  But it would be as true of Street as it is true of Adair that her writing suggests an unscientific conclusion.  Minus the explanation that the results of something like "Politi-Score" do not serve as a useful measure of the truthfulness of the individuals, readers will tend to understand it that way.  And, as a corollary, it isn't unreasonable to think that Street herself draws that type of conclusion until she gets around to a categorical denial.  Street almost delivers that denial by acknowledging the reality of selection bias in the PolitiFact data she uses.

A lesson in charitable interpretation

On the issue of Glenn Beck's ratings, Street wrote:

So Glenn Beck doesn’t skew toward false, he’s actually right spot on Barely True.

 Adair had written that Beck's ratings skew toward "False."  Street tried to put a finer point on it by noting that Beck's ratings form something like a bell curve.  Basic charity of interpretation, however, ought to suggest that Adair viewed the range of the "Truth-O-Meter" as a type of continuum, with the left end representing greater falsehood and the right end representing greater veracity.  Thus, for Adair to say that Beck "skews toward the False end of the PolitiFact spectrum" simply means that Beck's average is left of the center.  He's not trying to associate a rating with Beck's average.

Errors of this type, in sufficient numbers, could qualify a blog for induction to the Bad Blogs' Blood Bad Blogs Blogroll.  But it's early.  I don't take Karen Street as an idiot overall.  On the contrary  She just acts like a idiot on occasion.  Unfortunately, those occasions have occurred frequently during the early stages of her blogging career.