Google To Predict Accuracy of Political Statements

pestario writes "Google CEO Eric Schmidt talks about a service which can give the probability of the accuracy of statements made by politicians, among other things. From the Reuters article, Schmidt says: "We (at Google) are not in charge of truth but we might be able to give a probability." Can Google's 'truth predictor' bring an end to sound bites and one-liners? I'm not holding my breath...""

Comments

Re:I'd be surprised if this can be made really use

[jdavidb]

Abortion, for example - people will argue until the end of time whether it should or shouldn't be allowed, and there is no real objective truth to be had there because it is a strictly moral question.

I'll admit abortion is a hairy issue, but the idea that there can be no objective truth in moral issues in general is bogus. Given the obvious and reasonable axiom of self-ownership (and if you don't own yourself, who does? and if other people don't own themselves, but you claim to, on what basis do you base your claim?), some very basic and irrefutable principles of morality are easily derivable, giving us a system on which all can and should agree, regardless of religion (or the lack thereof) or any other philosophy. Anyone violating this (which includes all politicians) is in fact immoral and violating the principle of self-ownership.

Regardless of your source of morality, pretty much everyone agrees with the principle of self-ownership and argues for what is "right" and "wrong" based on it: a violation of rights is a violation of the principle of self-ownership. While religions differ vastly on theology, almost all religions agree at the core on the basic morality of these rights, and non-religious people also accept their own self-ownership and the rights of other people based on their own self-ownership.

The really important things in morality are not hairy or ambiguous at all.

Re:I'd be surprised if this can be made really use

[admdrew]

The point being, the actual act of killing the human isn't what is debated. What is debated is whether its wrong to kill the human.

No, you did not correctly label the argument, you presented your view, which (if I understand how arguments work) is only part of the whole issue.

Anyway, not trying to steer your thread off topic, I just hate to see you use that example.

Yes, you are; your comment was incorrect, illogical, and inciteful. You disagreed with the GP's rather logical assertion that abortion is a sticky topic, but your wish to disuade them from using abortion as an example was not from lack of strength of argument, but from your differing stance on that topic.

I find it a little odd you're belittling the contrasting viewpoint that didn't even exist in the GP's post.