What Do Misleading and Fair Mean?

On BetBacked (BB), users bet on whether identified speech will be found misleading or fair, according to judges who are experts in their fields.

But, what do misleading and fair mean? How are the judges to decide?

No one can say precisely because the concepts aren't well defined.

Take the statement “the earth is flat.” Is it misleading? Yes, because the earth is an oblate spheroid. And, no, because the earth appears level in many places, like the Bonneville Salt Flats.

As a practical matter, no statement is an island; whether it is misleading or fair depends on its context and, often, on the mind that interprets it.

So, judges of bet contests on BB are left to decide what misleading and fair mean according to their personal views. Judges are only asked to do two things:

1. Take into account the context of the speech being bet about.

2. Consider using Richard Feynman’s Cal Tech Commencement Address of 1974, Cargo Cult Science, as guidance.

   …But there is one feature I notice that is generally missing in Cargo Cult Science. That is the idea that we all hope you have learned in studying science in school—we never explicitly say what this is, but just hope that you catch on by all the examples of scientific investigation. It is interesting, therefore, to bring it out now and speak of it explicitly. It’s a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty—a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid—not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you’ve eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked—to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.

   Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can—if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong—to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it…

   In summary, the idea is to try to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another.

   The easiest way to explain this idea is to contrast it, for example, with advertising. Last night I heard that Wesson Oil doesn’t soak through food. Well, that’s true. It’s not dishonest; but the thing I’m talking about is not just a matter of not being dishonest, it’s a matter of scientific integrity, which is another level. The fact that should be added to that advertising statement is that no oils soak through food, if operated at a certain temperature. If operated at another temperature, they all will—including Wesson Oil. So it’s the implication which has been conveyed, not the fact, which is true, and the difference is what we have to deal with.