Factchecking
1. What exactly is fact-checking?
Fact-checking means verifying published information and knowledge. This can be a post on a social network, an article in a newspaper, or even a conversation with friends or acquaintances. Especially online, rumors and even false information are often spread, whether intentionally or unintentionally. Fact-checking describes methods that help you determine what is true and what is not. This also includes putting data and information into context, which can be very difficult and time-consuming without expert knowledge. In addition, identified false information is sometimes justified by referring to “freedom of speech” or described as “alternative facts.” This can lead to tensions within society or even contribute to its division.
2. Why is fact-checking important for you?
Not everything you see, read, or hear is true. This is hardly anything new. However, misinformation can negatively influence people, create distrust within society, or even undermine democracy. By checking whether something is true, you protect yourself and others from fake news and manipulation.
3. How can I check for myself whether something is true?
You can ask yourself the following questions:
- Who is saying this? (Is the source trustworthy?)
- What are their sources?
- Is this information also being reported by reputable sources? (dpa, FAZ, …)
- Does it sound too extreme to be true? Then it is better to double-check. Another tip is to search reliable sources that report specifically on the topic.
4. Can you recognize AI-generated content?
In fact, it is becoming increasingly difficult to identify AI-generated content. Look out for:
- Unclear or unnaturally perfect language
- Strange image details (e.g. unusual hands or backgrounds)
- No source or evidence
- Solution: reverse image search
5. What should I do if I discover false information?
- Do not share the misinformation.
- Report it if possible (e.g. on Instagram or TikTok) — Netzmelden (?)
- Let others know, but be friendly — nobody likes being lectured.
- If you want, send us the link — we can help you check it.
How can I recognize good and bad arguments in a discussion?
Fact-checking is not only about checking whether individual claims are true. In fact, disinformation can consist mainly of true facts if false conclusions are drawn from them. For example, a new study may be published and then misinterpreted by someone who uses logical fallacies to construct misinformation from it. However, it is important to note that logical fallacies do not necessarily arise from malicious intent or political populism.
Often, they are simply human errors.
The following list contains examples of logical fallacies and similar forms of faulty reasoning.
-
Slippery slope argument
This describes a chain of events that is supposedly triggered when a particular step is taken. Strictly speaking, this is not necessarily a “fallacy.” The argument focuses on the consequences of a particular action rather than on the reasoning behind that action. It quickly becomes a fallacy when the chain consists of increasingly extreme events.
Example:
“I am against homosexual couples being allowed to marry, because otherwise we will eventually allow marriage between three people, with animals, or between relatives.”
-
Confusing cause and effect
When two events are connected, it is sometimes not easy to determine the nature of that connection. Consider the following two events:
Event 1: A glass of water slips out of my hand.
Event 2: The glass of water breaks on the floor.
Here, it is very simple: The glass breaks (Event 2) because it falls out of my hand (Event 1). Event 1 is therefore the cause, and Event 2 is the effect. Even if we switched the two events around, the relationship would still be logical.
In the following example, however, it is not so simple:
Event 1: A child is crying.
Event 2: The mother picks the child up.
In this case, without additional information, we cannot clearly say which is the cause and which is the effect. It may be that the mother picks the child up because it is crying. But it is equally possible that the child started crying when the mother picked it up.
Confusing cause and effect is particularly common when scientific studies are discussed and evaluated.
Example:
Finding 1: Hard-working farmers have 4 to 5 cows.
Finding 2: Lazy farmers have no cows.
(False) conclusion: We need to give lazy farmers 4 to 5 cows so that they become hard-working.
-
Correlation and causation
Correlation describes a relationship between two events without there necessarily being a dependency between them. Causation, on the other hand, describes a cause-and-effect relationship between two events. The fallacy occurs when a causal relationship is assumed between two events that are merely correlated.
It can also be summarized as:
“A happens after B, so A must have happened because of B!”
Example: “After I ate gummy bears, my headache disappeared — gummy bears cure headaches!”
-
Confusion of the inverse
Suppose I have a statement such as: “90% of all people are right-handed.” I can derive another piece of information by considering its opposite: “10% of all people are left-handed or ambidextrous.” This is a valid inference.
The fallacy known as “confusion of the inverse” occurs when an incorrect inverse conclusion is drawn from a statement.
Example: “25% of all professors are women.” Therefore: “25% of all women are professors.”
Besides individual arguments, entire discussions can also be led in the wrong direction.
-
Decontextualization
Here, photos, videos, or graphics are used to support someone’s own position even though they have nothing to do with the claim being made. Images of political demonstrations are particularly popular for this.
Example: A user writes a post saying: “I demand: BAN COCA-COLA!!” They use an image of a demonstration where the actual subject of the protest cannot be clearly identified. This suggests that there are many supporters of their demand to ban Coca-Cola and that they have already organized demonstrations.
However, a reverse image search reveals that the picture actually comes from a demonstration calling for an increase in the minimum wage.
-
“Cui bono?”
(Latin for “Who benefits?”)
This question is often used to promote conspiracy theories. In fact, when investigating a crime, the police may initially investigate, among other things, who could have benefited from it. This can provide clues about possible motives — but it does not constitute conclusive evidence.
Conspiracy theorists often combine this question with the correlation-versus-causation fallacy to identify someone as being responsible for an attack, a terrorist attack, or another crisis.
Example: The US government is accused in conspiracy theories of being behind the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, in order to legitimize the subsequent “war of aggression (McGoldrick, 2004)” against Iraq.
-
Russell’s teapot
Russell’s teapot is an analogy intended to illustrate the burden of proof when making a claim. Consider the following conversation:
Person 1: “Did you know that there is a teapot floating around in our solar system? It is supposedly orbiting somewhere between Earth and Mars.”
Person 2: “That’s nonsense. Who told you that?”
Person 1: “Nonsense? Prove that it isn’t true!”
This example clearly demonstrates how absurd it is to demand proof that something does not exist when no evidence for its existence has been presented in the first place. The burden of proof lies with Person 1: they have to provide evidence for their claim, not the other way around. This also applies to claims that cannot actually be disproven.
