How it works · 3 of 4
There are three ways to check something somebody tells you. Almost everyone fights over the first two. The third one is what actually settles it.
Check one · provenance
Who wrote it? Is it really theirs? Is the quote real, or is the screenshot edited?
Mostly handledCheck two · accuracy
Did the numbers really do that? Does the study exist? Is the date right?
Mostly handledCheck three · structure
Everything above checked out. So does the point follow from the facts — or are the facts just sitting next to it?
Nobody is checking thisThree examples that pass the first two checks.
Different situations, different ways of falling apart. Try all three.
Posted this morning
"Gas went up 40 cents this month. The new mayor took office in January. So the mayor raised gas prices."
Three different ways to fall apart. None of them are lies, and all three would sail past a fact-checker.
This is why arguing never gets anywhere.
You say it's fake. They say it isn't. You say the numbers are wrong. They send you a link. Now you're arguing about the link.
You picked a fight on the two questions where they can just say "nuh uh."
The third question ends it.
"Okay. Both of those are true. Now show me how the first one caused the second one."
That question has an answer or it doesn't, and everybody in the room can tell which. You didn't call anyone a liar. You just asked them to connect it up.
What most people say
"That's not true."
What actually works
"Sure. So how does that get you to your point?"
So why doesn't everyone do this?
Because the first two you can look up in a minute. The third one you have to think about. It takes real attention, and there is way more coming at you every day than anyone has attention for.
That's the part a machine can take off your hands. Not deciding who's right — just telling you whether the thing holds together, before you spend your evening on it.