THE CORRECT ANSWER: DISINFORMATION Disinformation Curation is impossible by a ‘p

THE CORRECT ANSWER: DISINFORMATION
Disinformation Curation is impossible by a ‘panel’
The panel may provide trustworthiness when presenting information discovered, must be translated for public understanding.
Falsification by adversarial (market) competition is possible.
In any field, only the top handful (single digits) are competent to falsify claims. We learned in behavioral econ that disciplinary information is not generalizable.
The public and the media work very hard to obtain present answers when the truthful answer is almost always ‘we don’t know’ or ‘this is the range of possibilities, and we don’t know, and anyone who says otherwise is lying’
What the public needs from any authority is ‘the safe bet is X, and the risky bet is Y, and the public should CHOOSE as they see fit. That’s the only answer that should ever come out of anyone’s mouth.

For example:
All postwar behavior ‘science’ is pseudoscience: Boaz, Freud, Marx, Cantor, Lewontin, Gould. I could fill this entire space with pseudoscientists.
Furthermore the entire marxist-pomo-woke spectrum is produced by philosophers not scientists.
Democracy isn’t a good – but a luxury of rule of law
Mass democracy is a bad – we have concurrency for a reason.
Democratic Socialism isn’t a good – is a fraud.
Diversity isn’t a good – it’s incredibly destructive.
Individualism over familism isn’t a good.

How will you judge disinformation when the institutional narrative is DISINFORMATION?

While technically the discipline of epistemology or ‘truth’, in practical terms, I specialize in the logic of lying. How much do you want to bet I can’t expose anyone in any panel, when they answer any question, that requires truth before face?

In fact, the public is almost always, when given the truthful rather than ‘couched’ information, superior en mass to credentials. Almost always.

Why? For the same reason juries succeed so often: Because don’t need to detect truth, only detect incentive to lie, and failure to survive falsification of accusation of lying.

That’s how it’s done.

And no, you won’t find anyone who understands this better than I do. Sorry. We have too much legal and economic history. And social media has made the science of lying possible because of near-universal demonstrated bias by expression of outrage accusation and defense. That’s the one virtue of Social Media. It was possible to science lying.

Cheers
Curt Doolittle