The Titanic Was on Fire for Days Before the Iceberg Hit

Re:The Titanic Was on Fire for Days Before the Iceberg Hit by coldtea on Thursday December 13, 2018 @08:14AM (#18672040)

>"Facts" are about literal, objective, measurable reality. If it depends on a subjective interpretation and reading between the lines, then it isn't a fact.

In physics, chemistry, math, etc. facts are the order of the day, yes.

But raw facts are few and far between in human affairs and even less so in politics.

When people say something in non-hard-science domains, it more often than not depends on a "subjective interpretation", and depending on their phrasing, hidden motives, and eloquence might also need some "reading between the lines" or some charitable interpretation.

Nerds applying Vulcan-style logic to such claims just confuse matters more.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Titanic Was on Fire for Days Before the Iceberg Hit by krapp on Thursday December 13, 2018 @08:39AM (#18672199)

>Nerds applying Vulcan-style logic to such claims just confuse matters more.

I don't see Snopes doing that, though. I see them making an argument based on evidence and (in the specific case related the linked article) not even making an absolute claim about it at the end.

The people applying "Vulcan-style logic" are those who dismiss sites like Snopes out of hand as being politically biased, or propagandist, and therefore entirely useless.

[ Parent | on HN ]