Switch to: Citations

Add references

You must login to add references.
  1. The Epistemology of Fact Checking.Joseph E. Uscinski & Ryden W. Butler - 2013 - Critical Review: A Journal of Politics and Society 25 (2):162-180.
    Fact checking has become a prominent facet of political news coverage, but it employs a variety of objectionable methodological practices, such as treating a statement containing multiple facts as if it were a single fact and categorizing as accurate or inaccurate predictions of events yet to occur. These practices share the tacit presupposition that there cannot be genuine political debate about facts, because facts are unambiguous and not subject to interpretation. Therefore, when the black-and-white facts—as they appear to the fact (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations  
  • Political diversity will improve social psychological science.José L. Duarte, Jarret T. Crawford, Charlotta Stern, Jonathan Haidt, Lee Jussim & Philip E. Tetlock - 2015 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 38:1-54.
    Psychologists have demonstrated the value of diversity – particularly diversity of viewpoints – for enhancing creativity, discovery, and problem solving. But one key type of viewpoint diversity is lacking in academic psychology in general and social psychology in particular: political diversity. This article reviews the available evidence and finds support for four claims: (1) Academic psychology once had considerable political diversity, but has lost nearly all of it in the last 50 years. (2) This lack of political diversity can undermine (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   41 citations  
  • Revisiting the Epistemology of Fact-Checking.Michelle A. Amazeen - 2015 - Critical Review: A Journal of Politics and Society 27 (1):1-22.
    ABSTRACTJoseph E. Uscinski and Ryden W. Butler argue that fact-checking should be condemned to the dustbin of history because the methods fact-checkers use to select statements, consider evidence, and render judgment fail to stand up to the rigors of scientific inquiry and threaten to stifle political debate. However, the premises upon which they build their arguments are flawed. By sampling from multiple “fact-checking agencies” that do not practice fact-checking on a regular basis in a consistent manner, they perpetuate the selection (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations