• Dear forum visitor,

    It looks as though you have not registered for a forum account, or are not signed in. In order to participate in current discussions or create new threads, you will need to register for a forum account by clicking on the link below.

    Click here to register for a forum account!

    If you already have a forum account, you can simply click on the 'Log in' button at the top right of your forum screen.

    Your Elvenar Team

"Just the facts, Mam"

ajqtrz

Chef - loquacious Old Dog
Long Read, Don't read if you can't concentrate long enough to actually read all of it, please. Don't waste your time. Thanks! -- AJ

In the very old black and white series, “Dragnet” Sargent Friday, upon interviewing witnesses, seldom minced words. If a witness was speaking about the character of the person or some other opinion he would cut her off and admonish her with “just the fax, Mam.” Sargent Friday didn’t want opinions, he wanted facts. Just the facts.

Now that we have all kinds of “fact checking” going on I thought it might be a good thing to review what is a fact and what is not. And once we do that we will find that there are very, very few fact checking sites. In fact, I haven’t found one!

So what’s a fact? If I say there are thirteen ducks swimming in the pond that may or may not be a fact. If there are fewer or more than thirteen, well then my claim is not factual. It is false. But before I can label the claim as "false" I have to be sure I understand the claim. There are, therefore, a number of things I must consider.

First, since the number of ducks swimming can change from one moment to another, there is an implied date and time to the claim. I must consider that. “There are [right not] thirteen ducks swimming in the pond” is the claim. In addition, the ducks cannot be doing nothing in the pond, they must be swimming. Duck don’t have to swim and thus, at the moment of the claim there might be thirteen ducks in the pond, but not all thirteen are swimming. Or there might be five hundred ducks in the pond but only thirteen are swimming. The strict interpretation of the claim is what is being verified and is, in fact, the only thing that can be verified when it comes to a factual statement.

Second, the fact may include an imprecise measure. “About,” may mean ten ducks or it may be sixteen. Thus, if I say “there are about thirteen ducks swimming in the pond” there is some expectation that the number of ducks be “about” thirteen. How much that can vary is, itself, imprecise.

Third, the word “swimming” may, itself, be difficult to nail down. A duck is moving across the pond. Is it moving due to currents, is it actually swimming, or is it being blown by the wind? Or did the one making the claim mean a sort of general “swimming” as you might say “I went swimming” when you went to the beach even if you never entered the water? In other words, is the word “swimming” a metonym for “being in the water” or a literal thing?

In the end then, the verification of the statement can only be done if you have the same definitions of the various words and how they are being used. Once you get that you can then look, count, and measure if the statement “There are thirteen ducks swimming in the pond” is true or false. But what you can’t do is declare the statement to be “mostly false,” “somewhat false,” “neither true or false,” “somewhat true,” or “mostly true.” And the only way to know if the statement: “There are thirteen ducks swimming in the pond” is true is to stand at the pond and count the swimming ducks with the same definition of “swimming” and “duck” and “pond” as the person making the statement. And if he or she thinks “about” means plus or minus five, you can suggest you think the range too wide, but since he or she is making the claim his or her definition of what constitutes “about” must be used.

Those are the parameters of fact checking. A fact check is a verification of a concrete thing you can do if you are standing in the place where the one making the claim is standing. Or you can reference somebody who is standing in that place and who supports or disputes the claim. “I only counted four ducks, that were swimming” would be a counter claim. What you can’t do, and what is often done in the name of “fact checking” is to call up somebody who is in no position to have verified (i.e. have counted) the ducks. So the county worker coming to work on Monday morning has nothing to say about how many ducks were swimming in the pond the night before. He or she may be in the position of saying, “There are usually only a couple ducks on the pond” but that is a different fact, not a correction of the original claim. A claim which, itself, is subject to verification. Yet, this is what, too often, passes as fact checking. “Senator Smith says he's never seen thirteen ducks swimming in the pond” means nothing unless Senator Smith was at the pond the night before, even if he is Chairman of the Senate Ducks and Ponds Comittee.” He can say, if he believes it to be true, “I don’t believe there were thirteen ducks swimming in the pond,” but if he does one ought to ask WHY he doesn’t believe it. If asked he may have good reasons or not. He may say, “well according to the park worker he’s never seen more than two ducks swimming in the pond so it’s highly unlikely there were thirteen.” But of course that’s not refuting, that simply expressing doubt and offering a reason for that doubt. If he really wanted to prove the fact false he could, if it were true, point out that the pond was drained two weeks ago and has no water in it! Since it’s impossible for ducks to swim without water, he could deny the fact. But it’s up to him to make the case. Sadly, most fact checking is of the type that says, "of course it's not a fact because so and so says it's not a fact and so and so is in a position that matters." The one position that so and so isn't in is the position to count the ducks but the "fact checker" is simply substituting the Senators opinion for actual checking. It's lazy journalism but sadly, very, very common.

That every “fact checking” place I’ve surveyed has a scale running from false to true, with various graduations in between, tells me they aren’t checking facts at all. And that is, in my opinion, very, very sad. They really ought to get all their ducks in a row so we can count on them.

AJ
 

DarkKitty

Active Member
Hi AJ, I actually read the entire post. :)

I think you're point about definitions is a good one. We don't always have good working definitions in discourse. For example: ask people to define "left", "liberal" and "progressive." I bet as many people as you ask, you will have different answers. But the real question is: can we arrive at a kind of truth about the nature of those labels? I am too tired to attempt to answer my question as you have so carefully answered yours.

However, I would like to say that some forms of producing facts or reproducing facts, such as in labs etc, work less well in sociopolitical situations.
Your example about ducks is very useful if we are talking about a specific thing that can be observed at a specific time and measured using an agreed upon system. We produce facts in science this way by observing, measuring and if possible replicating a specific thing and then being very careful about the words we use to describe it. I'm all for it. It's a great system for gathering knowledge.

However, it doesn't always work in every situation where we need to have information to make good choices. The information may simply not be available. We may not ever have a second witness to the 13 swimming ducks-if they are swimming etc- so without secondary verification, do we have a fact? Or do we have something else? Can that witness' statement still help us find truth about the ducks and the nature of their activity?

Our attempt to answer such questions is why we have these, admittedly, imperfect fact-checking systems you mention. These fact-checkers deploy labels such as "somewhat true" etc. That's because the statements being verified by these fact-checkers are partly based on other bits of info for context. Or they are comparing a given statement to other statements that are deemed similar.

Again, it's not perfect. Some may argue about how a situation may or may not be similar to another, or whether context is missing or incomplete etc,. But the attempt is not always to find perfect verifiable facts as you would in a chem lab, it's to help people figure out if what someone said is "truthful" or not. That's why you see all the weird steps along the way from "true" to "false." It accounts for the gradients of truthfulness that someone might employ in a given statement.

I only want to point out that not all statements can be put through the same process for fact finding. But I don't think that means we can't evaluate how truthful a statement is. We all want facts, I hope. But when facts may be hard to come by we still have to find a way to figure out what is actually happening. It's not perfect, and it can be frustrating, but I think the effort is defensible.
 

DarkKitty

Active Member
LOL! I just re-read my post and literally had "you're" staring at me... I am very tired!

*your

(If there are others, I apologize.)
 

DeletedUser27300

Guest
What I want to know is who allowed the ducks to be in the pond, and of course is the duck a European Duck?
 

Iyapo1

Well-Known Member
LOL! I just re-read my post and literally had "you're" staring at me... I am very tired!

*your

(If there are others, I apologize.)
Fact: It is not that kind of forum. Grammar Nazis get kicked in the monitor by keyboard warriors.

Mostly False: No one actually kicks monitors.
 

ajqtrz

Chef - loquacious Old Dog
@Dark Kitty

You're right (not "your" right, btw LOL), that some "facts" are unverifiable but in fact and are derived from experimentation, observation and all that. And, I'd argue, not all facts are verifiable by all people. Ask me to verify E=mc^2 and it won't get done. But this does not mean nobody can do it or that there aren't indirect things I can observer that would verify. As noted in the example, if the pond was drained two weeks ago, the duck can't have gone swimming last night. Thus, there is observation to verify (or not) and there is reasoning which can do the same. But the farther you go from direct experience the more you are influenced by the process of "observation...} It may be the pond was drained two weeks ago hence the ducks could not have swam in it last night, but it also may be that, upon further investigation, the pond was refilled on Saturday night and thus, the ducks could have gone swimming last night.

Still, if a "fact" can't be verified -- I mean you cannot say if it is true due to the type of fact it is or that it has not yet been verified, you can't delcare it "false," either. Your point about a second witness to the number of ducks is well said. Traditionally a thing is established by two separate witnesses (or one witness and strong physical evidence). In journalism you are asked (though it's often ignored) to verify a thing by two independent sources, or, again, by a strong source (an witness in a position to know or have observed) and strong evidence. You can't run on a single persons claim that such and such happened. The point of this is, traditionally speaking, to keep the news factual. Unfortunately a lot of "not the news" has slipped into the news in the form of "analysis." "Playing to her base," for instance is an analysis of why Senator Smith might be voting for the $50 Billion Cure Cancer Now Initiative. The fact that she has a major cancer research center in her state and that voters will appreciate her work to fund the initiative because it brings money into the state, may be true and she may have even voted for the bill for those reasons. But is it a "fact" to say that's the reason she voted for it? Is it the only reason? Could the actual fact that her brother just died of cancer have no bearing on her vote. Or that every year X hundreds of thousands die from cancer, many in her own state? It's not a fact to say that she's "playing to her base' (implying that's her sole reason) unless you have her saying "I'm playing to my base." But such things are inserted into the "news" all the time to the point where 80% of the news isn't news, it's opinion pretending to be "factual analysis.'

So if the fact checkers wish to check facts, great. But in doing so they should stick to facts and try to do a couple things to help.

First, try to understand why the speaker may think he/she is being accurate. Sometimes the speaker is simply using out of date data. Do not imply the speaker is a liar because he or she is simply mistaken. If I say 3,000 deaths happened because of some virus, and the total is actually 4,000, it doesn't mean I'm a liar. It may mean I'm using outdated "facts" and the fact checker should note this -- but usually won't if the speaker is an "enemy." People very rarely actually lie in public. They do rely upon outdated and erroneous information at times and it may be that they receive that information from sources that are questionable. But that just makes them duped, not liars.

Second, recognize that the person you are using to discredit the "fact" needs to be in a position that they have direct knowledge of the event. In other words, they aren't receiving reports by people who received reports from people who may or may not have actually observed the events. The guy working for the park service doubts there were thirteen ducks in the pond. He says to his supervisor, "I've never seen thirteen ducks in that pond." The supervisor, taking him as an authority since he's down at the pond, says to his supervisor, "There weren't any thirteen ducks in that pond. That report is highly unlikely." And that guy, reports to the Ducks and Pond Committee Chairwoman, "Don't worry about it, there weren't thirteen ducks in the pond. They guy is just exaggerating to make you look bad." Then the reporter calls her and she says, "I have it on good authority that there weren't any thirteen ducks in that pond!" And sadly, the "fact checker" now goes to press, "According to Chairwoman Smith there were not 13 ducks in that pond!" Fact: FALSE!

All of which makes me think nobody knows what a fact is.

Sigh.

AJ1
 

Valtitude

Active Member
The political setting in the US surrounds the every day business of these fact-checking sites which I read and refer to fairly often. I find the ambiguity of statements such as 'mostly true' as helpful as 'true'.

Nothing in this corner of the Universe we live in is absolute for more than fractions of moments, as we understand the movement of time. Even life and death are not as absolute as humans once believed.

Everything is constantly evolving - including information about particular events, people etc. Many people seek absolute answers because ambiguity makes them uncomfortable.

That someone chooses to ignore generally accepted facts and give an alternative scenario that those ducks on the pond are walrus, says more about the person making the walrus statement, than the original blurb about thirteen ducks swimming in a pond.

Alternative facts. Alternative reality. What you chose to believe is your choice, but then you're also responsible for the consequences of that choice.
 

DarkKitty

Active Member
Thus, there is observation to verify (or not) and there is reasoning which can do the same.

Yes, reasoning! What fun! The thing humans think we're good at and yet, around a half a dozen of us die a year by being crushed by vending machines.

The fact that she has a major cancer research center in her state and that voters will appreciate her work to fund the initiative because it brings money into the state, may be true and she may have even voted for the bill for those reasons. But is it a "fact" to say that's the reason she voted for it?

What I think this comes down to is: if something is true, is it a fact?

First, we need to determine truthfulness. Can we determine if the quote, "She's playing to her base" is true? For this, we would need to know who are her base? What positions do they care most about? I don't know those things so I can't argue for the truthfulness of this statement one way or the other. But let's try a different statement with the same scenario: "She voted 'yes' because of the center."

I would say, it is true that knowing about the center and having good reason to believe it will bring her support will have an impact on her decision-making. It may not be the only factor, but it is one of them, that statement is true. So then, does that make it a fact her support was based, at least in part, on the center?

I can't say that it does, but I can defend the reasoning as truthful.

So in this case, if someone were to fact-check the statement: "She voted 'yes' because of the center." I feel they would be right to point out she is aware of the center, and any history of public opinion related to the center, and use that to defend the position that it is partly true that knowledge led to her decision. It is not a fact but it is partly true.

This is a tricky process. The only facts we have to work with is her knowledge of the center and it's approval in her state, at least I feel that was implied. So we have to move away from those facts in order to suss out the reasoning behind her vote. It's subjective. The conclusion can be challenged. But I think the more difficult burden would be to prove the opposite, why wouldn't it have an effect on her decision? Did she have a disagreement with the head of research? Did she back a different proposal to fund a different institution? Does she have person ties to an out of state hospital, etc?

Could the actual fact that her brother just died of cancer have no bearing on her vote.

There is also a kind of falsehood in omission. It would also be correct to add that she had experienced a loss and that would also have an effect on the outcome. Both statements are partly true.

it's opinion pretending to be "factual analysis.'

I agree we are starting to see a lot of editorials or opinion pieces in place of actual journalism. Local news papers close because of finances and we see the effects of this further up the food chain. We have fewer and fewer resources devoted to doing research and active reporting and more and more we get round ups of reactions on Twitter. I could waste days going over why, how and what that all means for democracy but I'll spare you and say, I agree, and it's becoming a real challenge to get to the heart of important issues today despite how many places we can get information.

But analysis has it's place. When I think of fact-checking, I think of PolitiFact. When I think news analysis, I think of articles in The Guardian.

Do not imply the speaker is a liar because he or she is simply mistaken.

Agreed.

People very rarely actually lie in public.

I do think there are many people who say things they believe to be true rather than are lying outright. But they should still be corrected, no one has to be rude or dismissive, but they do need to be corrected.

That being said, I do think some people do lie, and do so intentionally. I have a hangup about climate change. Many companies have suppressed information about facts relating to the crisis in order to make money. Those people did lie and they did it with purpose. I'm sure most people can think of situations like this which add to a lack of trust, which I think adds to this sense of tribalism around facts and narratives. It's harmful and we should try to hold people accountable for wrong or misleading information. We should also be fair and respond to people in good faith. However, we do need to find a way to deal with individuals who show us they are intentionally misleading or misinforming people. I do think there are out there and making it harder for the rest of us.

recognize that the person you are using to discredit the "fact" needs to be in a position that they have direct knowledge of the event

This is a tough ask for many cases. I don't think the intention is wrong, but it's not always possible. If you can't find someone to disagree with a claim that doesn't always mean it's true. And there is good work being done by academics and journalists to both contextualize first-hand accounts and bring them to a wider audience.

We should strive to hear from people who are actually effected by a given thing or have first-hand knowledge but there is also value in looking at statistics and larger bodies of research. Yes, we should be careful who we allow to be anointed a spokesperson or expert, but those people can contribute in meaningful ways to discourse and be credible sources of verification about a given claim. Skepticism is a good thing. Leverage and balance can also be helpful even if it's not always a substitute for lived experience.

***Looking over our posts, I can't help but think what we're really proven is how hard it is to do good journalism with limited time, resources and falling levels of trust.***
 

DarkKitty

Active Member
Many people seek absolute answers because ambiguity makes them uncomfortable.

I think there is some truth there, I also have some sympathy because of how uncertain so many things are for so many. A little comfort can go a long way.

Alternative facts. Alternative reality.

Even as an agnostic, I like to think there is a special place in Hell for all the people who knowingly manipulate and take advantage of the vulnerable.

What you chose to believe is your choice, but then you're also responsible for the consequences of that choice.

I wish it were only those responsible for their choices that had to suffer. Unfortunately, they also drag a lot of other people along for the ride. That leaves many other people responsible for cleaning up the mess and shouldering the weight of so much willful ignorance. We all deserve much better.

Everything is constantly evolving

Hopeful. Thrilling. I'm going to take it as a challenge. :)
 

ajqtrz

Chef - loquacious Old Dog
The political setting in the US surrounds the every day business of these fact-checking sites which I read and refer to fairly often. I find the ambiguity of statements such as 'mostly true' as helpful as 'true'.

The thing is, you can't be ambiguous about a fact. Facts are concrete measurements derived from direct experience (or indirect if based upon scientific experimentation that is of something elector-mechanically measurable and/or reasoned). Facts are either true or not. What I think the reporters really mean, and should say when they think something is "somewhat factual" is that they think it to be a statement that implies more than is warranted by the evidence. For instance, "thirteen ducks, (or walruses) in the pond may imply that it is too many and thus a danger to the environment. In the context of the claim it might be an exaggeration, especially if thirteen is far less than the normal amount (which might still be a statement about the environment, of course). My point is that it's not the fact that is being measured but the context of the fact and if the fact warrants the apparent conclusion the speaker is making. Most of the time the reporter is really reporting on that, not the actual fact. And if the reporter disagrees with the conclusion of the speaker then the fact becomes suspect out of the gate.

That someone chooses to ignore generally accepted facts and give an alternative scenario that those ducks on the pond are walrus, says more about the person making the walrus statement, than the original blurb about thirteen ducks swimming in a pond.

The problem with ignoring "generally accepted" facts is that they aren't facts. They may be conclusions drawn from observations and reason, but unless they are observable in some way, they aren't facts. For instance, you can measure the speed of light. It's not easy but anybody can do it and thus, it can be verified. That would be a fact. But how can you directly verify that the measurements of the surface temperature of the planet has gone up for forty years? I worked at the Space Science and Engineering Center under Dr. Verner Suomi, the "father of satellite meteorology" for a few years. Part of my job was to type his scientific papers and in the process I learned a lot about remote measurement. One day an article predicting a "coming mini ice-age" came out. It was on the front page of US News and World Report and covered by other major magazines/newspapers as well. I asked Dr. Suomi what he thought. He chuckled and said "we can't even predict the weather three days from now, what makes people think we can predict the climate in forty years?" I followed up the question with, "what do you think it would take to do so?" He paused, thought about it and answered, "About thirty times the data we have now more evenly distributed across the entire planet." Today, (well a couple years ago) I asked my friends at NOAA how much data we have. We might have three times the data now, most of it from the northern hemisphere. My problem is not with the conclusion that the surface of the planet is getting warmer, but the certainty by which all the attendant claims have been made. But it's a "generally accepted" fact of global climate change and that means I must accept it and all the economic and politics of it? Especially when even questioning it is often the death knell of ones career. One of my friends at NOAA is a skeptic but as he says, "you want to keep your job and get funding for your research you just keep quiet and carry on." Another friend, at USGS tells me she see's major problems with the water budget maps presented to the public but can't get them corrected because when she attempted her opinion didn't "fit the standard model," short-hand to her for "politically correct." They acknowledge that she's right, but making the change would "open a avenue for the deniers," as one supervisor put it.

As an environmentalist myself I'm afraid for science itself. If, for whatever reason, climate change in any of its aspects is shown to be false the general public will take a step back in believing anything science supposedly says. We already see this in the "anti-vaccers" as well as the climate change deniers, the anti-evolution ("intelligent design") and all that. It's not that these people are stupid, but they have grown to distrust the very foundation of reliable facts -- careful, and well designed observations accurately reported and free from political bias. It's all very, very sad.

Alternative facts. Alternative reality. What you chose to believe is your choice, but then you're also responsible for the consequences of that choice.

And as a result of their distrust in those who are linked to this reality we get alternative realities built on wishful thinking and other systems of knowledge. It's all pretty sad.

AJ
 

Pheryll

Set Designer
As an environmentalist myself I'm afraid for science itself. If, for whatever reason, climate change in any of its aspects is shown to be false the general public will take a step back in believing anything science supposedly says. We already see this in the "anti-vaccers" as well as the climate change deniers, the anti-evolution ("intelligent design") and all that. It's not that these people are stupid, but they have grown to distrust the very foundation of reliable facts -- careful, and well designed observations accurately reported and free from political bias. It's all very, very sad.

It may also be that those who present information that goes against the presiding narrative are labeled "deniers" regardless of the credibility of their argument, or how much they agree with the other points of the narrative. This cannot happen in science, but when science gets politicized it loses its focus.
 

ajqtrz

Chef - loquacious Old Dog
It may also be that those who present information that goes against the presiding narrative are labeled "deniers" regardless of the credibility of their argument, or how much they agree with the other points of the narrative. This cannot happen in science, but when science gets politicized it loses its focus.

I agree. I've observed the same thing and saw it clearly in the 12 years I spent in academia. The problem is, I think, in a faulty feedback loop. Science suggests a theory which supports a sociopolitical foundational belief...in other words somebody politically wins if the theory is true. The actual claims of the science are always tied to a general probability and the experimental data is usually either very, very narrow, and/or incomplete. The scientist though, because funding comes from the political realm, may (though most do not) exaggerate or extrapolate farther than the data actually supports with confidence. This excites those in the media who exaggerate the certainty of the claim (usually just implied or suggested) of the research. Politicians run with the distorted report of the certainty of the complex and perhaps wrong general conclusion of the research and begin to declare their opponents "anti-science" since they (sometimes) deny the supposed claims of the research. And they jump on the "certainty" bandwagon. So we have a media explaining how wonderful the Emperor's new cloths are because it's always wonderful to have your particular view confirmed by science, a general public that is a bit naive and believes the exaggerations of the certainty of the scientific theory and politicians who are just as naive and therefore truly believe something has been proven and the Emperor really does have new cloths. All of which is reinforced by a funding system dependent on politicians.

The Emperor's New Cloths, btw, in our modern climate, would have resulted in the kid being told to shut up or else! So the "deniers" don't get a fair hearing because it doesn't serve a sociopolitical group who have, themselves, been duped by each other OR have come to the right conclusion but done the disservice of shutting up the opposition because it's just easier than actually explaining why they think what the scientist has says is merely probably is certain. In the end the "certainty" takes over to the point where, not wanting to be labeled as a "denier" all sorts of funding shifts to "explore" the certainty of the complex and sometimes uncertain science so we can figure out what we must certainly do about it to the tune of billions and billions of dollars and real people gaining and losing their livings because they dare to challenge the status quo. AND, over time, if one thing that has presented as having been proven by science, fails to be true, science gets a black eye and people stop vaccinating, start believing "alternative facts" and all that.

So, again the motives of reporters exaggerate and naivety of how science is done allows them to exaggerate the claims to the point where to deny the claims is too much and to retain or get funding scientists begin to mute their criticism until the theory has been "proved." Which, of course, gives the media outlets the justly say, as the NYT has said, "we will except no opinions expressing doubt about global climate change." The Emperor has new cloths and science has proved it!

One of the best sources of understanding how the sociology of science and the need for "deniers" in the system, is Thomas Kuhn's 1962 work, "the Structure of Scientific Revolutions" The latest edition is 2012. Well worth the read.

AJ
 

Iyapo1

Well-Known Member
I do not disagree with any of the points made, but I would like to point out that the media exacerbates this further with clickbait headlines. "The Emperor's New Cloths destroy the Environment!".
Then you read the story and find out the Emporer is cold and had a few extra logs tossed on the fire. Not everyone reads the stories they just absorb the headlines.
 

ajqtrz

Chef - loquacious Old Dog
I do not disagree with any of the points made, but I would like to point out that the media exacerbates this further with clickbait headlines. "The Emperor's New Cloths destroy the Environment!".
Then you read the story and find out the Emporer is cold and had a few extra logs tossed on the fire. Not everyone reads the stories they just absorb the headlines.

Sadly, everything appears to be a "wall of text" to many readers if it's not a hard hitting headline, pithy remark, mantra or meme. Small, short, easy to remember in support of what they feel is right. Everything else is just too much work!

Democracy is hard work and the concept of "a well informed citizenry" was used to justify the freedom of the 4th estate. Sadly the 4th estate has become more and more interested in their own ability to change things than their responsibility to be accurate and as unbiased as possible.

AJ
 

Silver Lady

Well-Known Member
“I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I’m not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.”
Robert McCloskey or Alan Greenspan? Both have been cited as the source of the quote. Did one quote the other? So very hard to be accurate even when you try. Maybe it all comes down to Schrodinger‘s Cat and Quantum Entanglement.
 

SoggyShorts

Mathematician par Excellence
If a witness was speaking about the character of the person or some other opinion he would cut her off and admonish her with “just the fax, Mam.” Sargent Friday didn’t want opinions, he wanted facts. Just the facts.
Here's a fact: He never actually said that line in any episode.
 
Top