Fact Checker Prompt

 

Section I: The Anatomy of a Factual Statement

• Definition: A statement of fact is a declarative sentence that can be proven true or false with objective evidence.¹ Its truth is independent of personal beliefs or feelings.⁴

• Core Criteria: To be factual, a statement must be objective, verifiable, and falsifiable—meaning there must be a conceivable way to disprove it.²

• Accuracy vs. Nature: A statement can be classified as factual even if it is inaccurate. The key is that its truth value can be tested against evidence.⁵

• Role of Evidence: Factual statements are grounded in empirical evidence, such as measurable data, direct observations, or historical records.⁶

• Linguistic Form: They are typically written in the indicative mood to assert a claim about reality with clarity and directness.²

Section II: The Fact-Opinion Dichotomy

• Fundamental Difference: Facts are objective and based on external reality, while opinions are subjective expressions of belief, feeling, or judgment.⁴

• Identifying Opinions: Opinions are often marked by value or judgment words (e.g., best, terrible, beautiful), predictive language, or words that suggest a course of action (e.g., should, ought to).⁸

• Beyond the Binary: The distinction is not always simple. Other types of claims include:

  • Inferences: Logical conclusions based on known facts, but not directly observed.⁹

  • Predictions: Statements about the future that cannot be verified in the present and are therefore considered opinions, even when made by experts.⁸

  • Informed/Expert Opinions: Judgments based on evidence and deep knowledge that are more credible than simple preferences but are still opinions.¹⁰

• Challenges in Distinction: "Borderline statements" often mix factual and opinion-based elements, and political bias can significantly influence how an individual classifies a statement.⁵

Section III: The Epistemology of Verification

• Verification Framework: A systematic approach to fact-checking includes four key strategies:

  1. Check for Previous Work: See if reputable sources have already investigated the claim.¹¹

  2. Go Upstream to the Source: Trace the information back to its original context.¹¹

  3. Read Laterally: Investigate what other independent sources say about the original source's credibility.¹¹

  4. Circle Back: If a line of inquiry becomes confusing, restart the process with what you have learned.¹¹

• Source Analysis: Evaluating a source involves assessing the author's credentials, identifying potential biases, understanding the author's intent, and checking the publication's reputation.¹²

• Principle of Corroboration: A claim's reliability is strengthened by confirming it across multiple, independent, and credible sources.¹⁴

• Authentication: In formal contexts like law, verification involves authenticating evidence, such as through witness testimony or expert comparison, to ensure it is what it claims to be.¹⁵

Section IV: Philosophical Foundations

• Theories of Truth: Philosophers have proposed several theories to define truth:

  • Correspondence Theory: A statement is true if it corresponds to a fact in reality.¹⁶

  • Coherence Theory: A statement is true if it fits logically within a larger system of beliefs.¹⁶

  • Pragmatic Theory: A statement is true if it is useful or "works" in practice.¹⁶

• The Nature of a Fact: Metaphysically, a fact is a "state of affairs" in the world that makes a true statement true. Philosophers like Wittgenstein argued that the world is the totality of facts, not things.¹⁹

• The Fact-Value Distinction: First articulated by David Hume, this is the principle that one cannot logically derive a value statement (what ought to be) from a purely factual statement (what is).²¹ This "is-ought problem" separates descriptive claims from prescriptive ones.²¹

Section V: Statements of Fact in Legal Discourse

• Defamation Law: This area of law addresses harm from false statements of fact. It includes libel (written defamation) and slander (spoken defamation).²³

• The Legal Test: To be actionable as defamation, a statement must be a provable false assertion of fact, not a protected opinion. Courts use a "totality of the circumstances" test, considering the statement's verifiability, specificity, and context.²⁵

• Key Defenses: Truth is an absolute defense to a defamation claim.²⁷ Statements made in official proceedings may also be protected by privilege.²⁹

• The "Actual Malice" Standard: For public officials and public figures, the plaintiff must prove the defendant made the false statement with "actual malice"—that is, with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth.³¹

Section VI: Cognitive Barriers and Logical Fallacies

• Logical Fallacies: These are errors in reasoning that create the illusion of a valid argument, often by substituting emotion or misdirection for objective evidence.³²

• Common Fallacies that Obscure Fact:

  • Ad Hominem: Attacking the person making the argument instead of the argument itself.³⁴

  • Appeal to Authority: Citing an unqualified or biased authority figure.³⁶

  • Cherry-Picking: Selectively using data that supports a conclusion while ignoring contradictory evidence.³⁵

  • Anecdotal Evidence: Using a personal story as a substitute for large-scale evidence.³⁸

  • False Dilemma: Presenting only two extreme options when more exist.³⁹

  • Straw Man: Misrepresenting an opponent's argument to make it easier to attack.⁴⁰

• Cognitive Biases: Inherent mental shortcuts also impede objectivity. Confirmation bias, the tendency to favor information that confirms existing beliefs, makes people vulnerable to misinformation.¹²