Tag Archives: facts

Ground Truthing

1 Reply

The term ‘ground truthing’ was shared with me last night by a friend, Neil. I had never heard the term before so did a quick MS365 Copilot request to learn more.

Ground truthing is the process of collecting data on-site (in the real world) to validate and calibrate information obtained from remote sensing technologies, models, or other indirect methods… It’s essentially a reality check to ensure that what the data suggests matches what’s actually happening on the ground.

While it is primarily used in Geography & Remote Sensing, Environmental Science, Agriculture, and Machine Learning & AI, I think it’s a term (or at least a practice) we are going to see a lot more use of in the future. More and more, when I receive information I’m immediately questioning if it’s real. Anything remotely controversial, or surprising, easily falls into a category of doubt… ‘I wonder if this is real or AI?’ But more recently, almost every video and article I see seems to sit in an uncanny valley of almost true or almost real. Before I accept new information, I have to ask myself, ‘Where can I verify this?’ In other words, ‘How can I ground truth this?’

Here is a simple example, in that the information is obviously false, but the deep fake is impressively realistic.

I also saw a video of Physicist Brian Cox saying that comet ATLAS 3i was definitely a spaceship. I didn’t bother fact checking it, I new it was fake, but enough of his followers questioned these kinds of videos that Brain came out on social media to say this:

“I keep seeing AI shite of me popping up on YouTube. The general rule is that if I appear to say something that you agree with and you are a UFO nobber, flat earth bell end or think comet ATLAS 3i is a spaceship, it’s fake.”

Where it gets more complicated is where actual facts are taken and then exaggerated. On the same theme of science and space, I recently saw a video that was talking about the theory that our entire universe might be in a massive black hole. From Copilot:

Some physicists propose that our universe might exist inside a black hole. This idea stems from the observation that black holes warp space and time so intensely that they could create a new, self-contained universe within. The consistent spin direction of many galaxies could be a result of the angular momentum inherited from the parent black hole, influencing the structure and motion of matter in our universe.

This is indeed a theory that is being considered by some scientists and I find it very interesting. So when a video comes up on my social media stream about it, I watch it. But when 20 seconds in I hear the narrator say that this is now considered true, I can’t even get myself to watch to the end of the video. These kind of videos really piss me off. I am angered that someone would create a video based on factual, interesting and novel ideas, but exaggerate the information and outright lie about it for the sake of views, clicks, and likes.

All 3 of these examples are actually easy, because my BS detector goes off. Where I’m concerned now is where that detector does not go off. What happens when the lies are more subtle, when the information is more nuanced? For example, do I really understand the issues happening in one of the many global conflicts right now? What’s the bias of the news or broadcasting station sharing the information? Where do I get more authentic information? How do I go about ground truthing what I’ve heard? Can I even get access to information ‘from the ground’?

It’s getting to the point where I have to question almost everything I hear. Is it real, what is the source, and where can I verify this? I hadn’t heard the term ground truthing before last night, but I realize that I’ve already started doing it, and I’m going to be doing a whole lot more of it in the future.

Theory, fact, and identity

One of the ironies of science is that when you hold a theory to be true, you can base your factual understanding around that theory.

The Theory of Relativity is just a theory, but we can prove at least part of it because time moves slower for faster moving objects, and if we didn’t scientifically account for this, GPS wouldn’t work because we need to make adjustments for this on satellites. Not all aspects of all theories are that easy to prove, and scientists spend entire careers trying to produce evidence for theories.

Some are true scientists and if they come up with evidence that does not support their theory and understanding of the world, they seek another theory. They abandon the theory that is no longer supported be evidence.

Other pseudoscientists will have every possible reason and justification why the new evidence is wrong. They will defend a broken/falsified theory. They will ignore the concrete evidence and double down on the theory they support.

I can rewrite this entire message starting with,

“One of the ironies of politics is that when you hold a political party’s stance to be true, you can base your factual understanding around that stance.”

…And no matter which party is supported, the bias will lead to pseudo-beliefs. Supporters will ignore the concrete evidence and double down on the stance they support. Except it’s worse, because the theories/stances they support are based on inherent biases rather than facts.

The problem here is that we are in an era where political stance is more influential than scientific theories and facts. Identity matters more than evidence, more than decades of theoretical research, more than facts. And so we have debates that make comparisons of unequal dichotomies.

We have debates between scientists and morons: scientists and flat earthers; scientists and climate change deniers; scientists and religious zealots. And the fact that we have these debates, the fact that we allow these debates to influence our policies, actions, and ultimately our thinking, all make us a little dumber, and a lot more open to influences that we should not waste our time on.

We’d all be better off letting go of identity politics and thinking about the validity of individual arguments. You can be left wing and agree that a country should have safe borders where thoughtful decisions are made about who comes into the country. You can be right wing and agree that women should have rights over their own bodies. You can be moderate and not be ‘othered’ by people on both political wings because of specific stances you hold that are not necessarily moderate.

Identify politics has no place influencing theories and facts. We need to think of politics the way good scientists think about theories: Seek out factual information and be prepared to change our minds if the evidence warrants us to change.

Not all voices are equal

I love the Bill Nye analogy about the climate debate. He says that if the debate were authentic, rather than having two talking heads debating, it would be hundreds of scientists on one side versus one climate denier on the other.

I saw a social media clip yesterday where a microbiologist was debunking a self declared holistic practitioner on the consumption of unpasteurized milk. The microbiologist wrote his master’s thesis on bacterial infections in cow’s mammary glands.

The self-declared expert espousing unscientific and incorrect information on social media is not an equal voice to an expert. Do they have a right to share their views? Sure. Do they deserve an audience? No.

I wish that I knew how to make the situation better but I don’t have answers. I’m extremely pro ‘free speech’. I think people are entitled to share their views. However, when I see misinformation and disinformation being shared by people with large audiences, I shudder. I worry about how their messages are consumed, by how many people they lead down a bad path.

In 2024 no one, and I mean NO ONE, should believe the earth is flat and yet the group of flat earth believers is getting larger. Imagine being able to own a telescope and see images from the James Webb telescope and still believing something that societies 5,000+ years ago already knew was wrong.

Not all voices are equal, and some voices deserve a larger voice than others. Who decides? Who polices? I don’t know, but I do know that we are entering (have entered) an era where false information gets shared significantly faster than correct information. Corrected information and updated facts don’t get the same play time on social media. So we are essentially living in an era of disinformation.

This doesn’t feel like progress, and as AI models continue to learn from the inputs we are providing, this scares me. I saw a stat that as much as 80% of the internet could be AI generated by the end of 2026. How much of that generated information will be based on incorrect assumptions and conclusions? How much of it will be intentionally misguided? Who is deciding which voices the AI models listen to?

We can’t continue to let ill-informed people have equal voices to those that have more informed perspectives… But I’m not informed enough to know how to change this.

Changing Our Opinions…

I recently wrote Certainty Versus Evidence, and concluded with, “Seek out wise people who are smart enough to be humble, and uncertain, and as curious as you are… And don’t let yourself get stuck in concrete thinking.”

It really comes down to the idea that we need to be willing to change our opinions and our point of view when more information comes our way.

This means:

  • We need to respectfully listen to alternative points of view.
  • We need to ask clarifying questions.
  • We need to challenge our own assumptions.
  • We need to be humble enough to recognize that we don’t know everything.
  • We need to keep learning.

It always surprises me the that changing of one’s opinion is seen as weak. To me it’s a sign of strength. Openly admitting that you’ve changed your mind based on new evidence is a superpower. It means you don’t have a fixed mindset.

The difference between this and being gullible is that you aren’t easily persuaded, but rather data driven. You aren’t blindly believing new information, you are discerning, measuring, calculating, and being inquisitive.

We aren’t having our minds changed, we are changing our minds.

It’s not hard to do this when your new opinion fits with the views of those around you, but if that’s not the case, a simple change of opinion could be very challenging. I think both Copernicus and Galileo would agree with me.

It’s a big step to openly change your mind on a challenging topic. It takes strength of mind and will to do so, and it is a sign that you are willing to learn and grow. Certainty is the enemy of understanding, compassion, and growth. Ultimately if we are willing to change our opinions, we are willing to change and grow.

Certainty Versus Evidence

We are living through an epidemic of certainly at the expense of evidence.

Selectively chosen facts are sprinkled on emboldened ideas that sit like concrete, embedded deep in the minds of people who are certain they are right. Contrary evidence is tossed aside. If it doesn’t fit my truth or my world view then, it’s wrong, it’s misinterpreted, it’s fake news.

When scientists discover galaxies that are too large for the age that they are, considering when they were born, early in the development of the universe… it makes them ponder the theories they hold. Scientists are excited by this puzzle. What’s at play here? Is it a challenge of our evidence collection or are there other theories that may be better? This is the thrill of being at the forefront of science. It’s the idea that we continue to learn and reformulate our theories and make them better.

But to certainty focused, evidence lacking, non-scientific ‘experts’ (in their own minds), this new data is a chance to mock scientists; To emphasize that ‘they don’t know anything’ about the universe. This new evidence isn’t scientific evidence but rather proof that all science is wrong. These new galaxies are evidence of a higher power, or worse, a flat world.

We have people selling water bottles that make hydrogen water that’s somehow supposed to be better than just drinking water. Every commercial for supplements or diets or exercise plans tell you how the evidence is clear and this is the product that will transform your life.

I recently saw this fascinating video about a bug that shoots acid from its butt as a defensive mechanism. It was a totally interesting and engaging video for over 2 minutes, then it started into an unexpected conclusion of Intelligent Design and became an anti-evolution propaganda video that I had to stop watching. But I did wonder how many people bought into this, and I peeked at the comments which were filled with comments like, ‘God is amazing’.

‘Follow your own Truth’, with a capital ‘T’. Cherry pick your evidence and strengthen your certainty. That’s what it seems more and more people are doing these days. The certainty epidemic is growing and it’s getting harder and harder to sift through the BS, and actually know what evidence to follow.

The only anecdote is to stay curious and ask questions. Seek out wise people who are smart enough to be humble, and uncertain, and as curious as you are… And don’t let yourself get stuck in concrete thinking.

Humanity – versus – Reality

I saw a video a few days ago of hundreds of unmasked protesters, packed together in a square in the United Kingdom, singing ‘Stick your poison vaccines up your ass’ to the tune of ‘She’ll Be Coming Round the Mountain When She Comes’. I wanted to write about it sooner, but I could only come from an angle of anger and disgust. It would have been a good rant, that would probably have made me feel better, but I’m done ranting with the purpose of making myself feel better. I’ve been seeking out joy, determination, fun facts, and when dealing with our current situation, humour, as sort of coping mechanisms for dealing with the discord that seems to be pervasive right now.

There is an epic battle going on. It is a battle on many battle grounds. It is a battle happening across the world. It is a battle that pits humanity against reality. Here are six of the battlegrounds:

  1. The Covid-19 Pandemic: Many people are dying – versus – Protests against the preventions and lockdowns to prevent the spread.
  2. Vaccines: They save lives – versus – They are dangerous (or they will be used to monitor and track us).
  3. Climate change: It’s the greatest threat we face as a species – versus – It’s a hoax.
  4. Science: Seeking objective facts – versus – un-objective and agenda-driven propaganda.
  5. Freedom: Government are here to serve and protect us – versus – Governments are corrupt and stripping away our freedoms in an attempt to control us.
  6. Civil liberties: Issues like racism, gender identity, pro-choice, freedom of expression – versus – Religious values, as well as both right-wing (QAnon) and left-wing (Antifa extremists) using hateful tactics to argue their points.

I purposely didn’t use the word ‘Truth’ before now. I believe that we are living in a post-Truth era (with an intentional capital ‘T’).  I’ll leave you with Stuart McMillan’s webcomic about Neil Postman’s book, ‘Amusing Ourselves to Death‘. I recently listened to both 1984 and Brave New World back-to-back. I was struck by the contrast between a world run based on fear – versus – one run based on pleasure. I think that things are so messed up right now that we are stuck in a dystopian novel where both worlds exist simultaneously. Many people live in constant fear based on ‘facts’ that are cherry-picked, on half-truths, and even made up completely. Many more are living in a social media based alternate reality where their truths are based on a ‘news’ feed designed to entertain with a confusing mix of facts and fiction.

I don’t know how so many people could be naive enough to believe that the world is flat and other ridiculous conspiracies; That vaccines will be used to monitor you; That so many people can confuse mask use with being a sheep; Or that so many people can believe one group’s fight for rights undermines their own rights? Yet, across the globe, millions of people are so sure they are right, that protests and propaganda based on ignorance are now commonplace.

We are living in an era where humanity has no grasp on reality. Fiction and fact are interchangeable. ‘T’ruth is subjective. And a common, collective plan for peace and prosperity seems further away than any worlds that Huxley or Orwell could fabricate.

I don’t agree to disagree

In Canadian fashion I will apologies for this, but I don’t agree to disagree. Sorry.

No I won’t say it’s ok for you to have a different opinion about Covid-19, it is not just a flu. It’s also not an infringement on your rights to wear a mask any more than it is to insist you wear a seatbelt, or not enter a store naked from the waist down… and no, this is not a ridiculous comparison.

No, it’s not ok for you to spread QAnon conspiracies any more than it’s not ok to share religious reasons to infringe on the rights of others. These are both wrong in an open, free, and democratic society.

Do you have a right to expunge stupidity in this open, free, and democratic society? Yes. Yes, you do… but I don’t have to accept it as something deserving an equal stance to science and facts. I don’t have to see it as an opposing view worthy of debate. You are wrong.

I don’t agree to disagree, not at all. Your sources are not reliable, your opinions are not facts. I’m not agreeing to disagree. To do so, I would be weighing fact to fiction like they somehow are the same thing. They are not.

The economy can stay open if people wear masks, socially distance themselves and sanitize appropriately. Some people might disagree with me, and on a topic like this we can agree to disagree.

However, with 40,000,000+ cases worldwide 1,118,443 deaths, and over 9,000,000 known active cases worldwide this is not just a bad flu, it’s a pandemic. And if you want to disagree with that well then sorry… you are wrong.

Put a mask on, and thank those around you for being respectful and doing the same.