> Consider for the moment the problem of 'fake news' ... without getting into the debate of what is and isn't true
This comment reminds me of another Shirky essay [1]. He says:
> [This is] the pattern for descriptions of the Semantic Web. First, take some well-known problem. Next, misconstrue it so that the hard part is made to seem trivial and the trivial part hard. Finally, congratulate yourself for solving the trivial part.
The difficult part is figuring out exactly what is and what isn't true. If we had a perfect map of reality it would be easy to detect fake news. In fact we wouldn't need any news at all or journalists or anyone else except the people who build the ontology.
I don't find this dismissal persuasive. If I understand you're point, you are arguing that without perfect truth, no partial solution has any value.
If that is indeed your argument, it is remarkably similar to the argument "Perfect security is impossible, this system is worthless." I think it is demonstrably obvious that there is a related parameter in both cases, which is the cost of overcoming the system is greater than the gain from overcoming said system.
As an example of how that argument fails in practice, consider textbooks. When I was working on this problem full time the organization had a relationship with a major publisher of textbooks. Consider the system which can construct an ontology and knowledge graph based on the contents of a text book. It may not be 'true' in the Aristotle sense, but it is an effective tool for evaluating whether or not a paper or essay correlates that ontology and knowledge graph or doesn't. In such a system there is value in evaluating the extent with which the knowledge in the textbook has been communicated to the person writing the essay.
Being able to automate the analysis has other benefits as well which extend beyond flagging documents which disagree a previous established canon.
That is now one of my favorite essays. Thanks for posting.
It does amuse me how much this framing of problems happens. Both in the annoying cases of arm chair quarterbacks, and in the cases of folks that take on problems previously thought of as too difficult.
This comment reminds me of another Shirky essay [1]. He says:
> [This is] the pattern for descriptions of the Semantic Web. First, take some well-known problem. Next, misconstrue it so that the hard part is made to seem trivial and the trivial part hard. Finally, congratulate yourself for solving the trivial part.
The difficult part is figuring out exactly what is and what isn't true. If we had a perfect map of reality it would be easy to detect fake news. In fact we wouldn't need any news at all or journalists or anyone else except the people who build the ontology.
[1] http://www.shirky.com/writings/herecomeseverybody/semantic_s...