How do we expose “fictoids?”

Frequently, “fictoids” seem credible because they are accepted and are taken for granted. In a minor part of Jeff’s example, Jeff references the Beck and Stewart/Colbert rally attendance estimates. CBS used an “expert” to challenge the accepted wisdom broadcast on other networks, most of which were based upon informal, off the record guesstimates by the National Parks Service. It is possible to research the expert’s methodology (AirPhotosLive.com, I believe), and make a judgment about it. Informal estimates don’t have this transparency, yet the repeated reference to them contributes to their credibility. Photographs of each event are available for anyone who wants to investigate them, but it is difficult for casual observers to analyze them. If a court hearing was held, dueling “experts” would probably be presented to contest the other side’s findings. Vetting “fictoids” can be a time consuming process.

The “expert” as a concept can be analyzed as a social type to use Simmel’s terminology. Part of what defines an “expert” is a belief that an “expert” has something special that distinguishes them from most other people. It usually involves claims about special training, skills, knowledge, and experience. If we go beyond these characteristics, it is possible to understand what goes into the making of an “expert”; help explain their influence; understand other aspects of their interactions; and the credential making and maintenance process. “Experts” are expected to suspend their preconceptions and biases, and offer opinions, based upon an objective analysis of a situation. An irony is that “experts” frequently disagree with one another. This makes it more difficult to form conclusions. The situation is made more complex in that “expert” advice is frequently part of a commercial arrangement.

A relatively modern challenge for the “expert” is transparency made by making situations public which frequently happens as large numbers of people contribute to discourse through the new media. While there is a lot of noise in the content of the new media, frequently, some insights are surfaced which have been overlooked by the “experts.”

I think what this suggests is the need to blend “expert” analysis with widely shared, analyzed and contested information. It is a messy process, but in the end, it should be possible to properly identify an assertion as either a fact or “fictoid.”