What about "grey" things for which different groups can be correct in some way. Adding clarity to the information can improve things more than "disputing" it.
Some scientific articles are click-bait like: "Reality does not exist until we measure it".
http://www.sciencealert.com/reality-doesn-t-exist-until-we-m...
But it says: an atom can be in superposition state until it is measured. Which tells something about a single atom, not about reality.
Or things that are claimed by officials or experts, but for which there is not enough evidence, no evidence at all, or even contrary evidence? Like: Is Russian hacking disputed for which there was no real evidence? Or is wikileaks disputed who exposed quite some corruption? Is Snowden disputed? Is dirty wars (drone assassinations) disputed?
Or can we ask deeper questions, like: How much are we being spied on by Facebook? Is Facebook trying to change what we think? What organisations are behind Facebook?
I think that both sides should have a fair say in things. With the emphasis on fair. If we declare it disputed and only show one side, we push people apart and stop any deeper discussions. Stupidity is caused by knowing only one side of the story.
Adding a joke from the U.S. army: How can you tell if an official from the pentagon is lying?
Some scientific articles are click-bait like: "Reality does not exist until we measure it". http://www.sciencealert.com/reality-doesn-t-exist-until-we-m... But it says: an atom can be in superposition state until it is measured. Which tells something about a single atom, not about reality.
Or things that are claimed by officials or experts, but for which there is not enough evidence, no evidence at all, or even contrary evidence? Like: Is Russian hacking disputed for which there was no real evidence? Or is wikileaks disputed who exposed quite some corruption? Is Snowden disputed? Is dirty wars (drone assassinations) disputed?
Or can we ask deeper questions, like: How much are we being spied on by Facebook? Is Facebook trying to change what we think? What organisations are behind Facebook?
I think that both sides should have a fair say in things. With the emphasis on fair. If we declare it disputed and only show one side, we push people apart and stop any deeper discussions. Stupidity is caused by knowing only one side of the story.
Adding a joke from the U.S. army: How can you tell if an official from the pentagon is lying?
Answer: მиιʌow ƨι ʜ⊥now ƨιʜ.