Fact checking isn’t always the answer
Misinformation is a growing global concern, and many believe fact checkers can solve the problem. However, as misinformation becomes more sophisticated, the influence of fact checkers diminishes. For example, if I predict rain a week from Monday, we can only confirm its accuracy when that day arrives. Despite uncertainty, you might still take precautions, like bringing in your washing. This illustrates the challenge fact checkers face: while we understand the present well, the past and future always involve uncertainty.
When a climate denier claims the Earth won’t warm in 200 years, we can only refute this after the time has passed. Similarly, knowledge about prehistoric climates relies on proxy data, not direct measurements. Fact checkers must therefore compare competing models rather than absolute truths. Scientific models tend to improve over time, but the public often struggles to assess their quality. This allows politicians to cherry-pick models that support their views, simply stating, “I’ve seen some modelling.”
A recent example is energy cost projections. No one can know the true outcomes until the plans are implemented, making it difficult for people to make informed decisions. Ultimately, misinformation thrives in areas where uncertainty exists, and fact checking alone cannot fully resolve these complexities.
So if truth doesn’t really exist yet, how can we fact-check anything about the future?