I suppose there is an selection dynamic, within all kinds of evidence, for bullshit to evolve towards the appearance of being-possible-to-verify without actually being possible to verify. So the FOAF story adapts as it travels the social network, including enough details and to appear to be always socially close enough that you could go back to the source (but you can't); and for bullshit academic papers (say) the claims are backed by citations, to papers that appear to be in journals you could check (but you can't, because they are fake, or don't support what is claimed or whatever); and so on and so forth for all evidence types
Oooh -- the bit about inaccessible journals is a good point. If the journals are inaccessible, then you do need a reporting or analysis layer where someone with the right access or knowledge can check them for you (or alternatively, you need the testimony of the person citing those to be trustworthy). But yes, both cases, it's a sort of veneer of reference.
Thanks for writing, really interesting!
I suppose there is an selection dynamic, within all kinds of evidence, for bullshit to evolve towards the appearance of being-possible-to-verify without actually being possible to verify. So the FOAF story adapts as it travels the social network, including enough details and to appear to be always socially close enough that you could go back to the source (but you can't); and for bullshit academic papers (say) the claims are backed by citations, to papers that appear to be in journals you could check (but you can't, because they are fake, or don't support what is claimed or whatever); and so on and so forth for all evidence types
Oooh -- the bit about inaccessible journals is a good point. If the journals are inaccessible, then you do need a reporting or analysis layer where someone with the right access or knowledge can check them for you (or alternatively, you need the testimony of the person citing those to be trustworthy). But yes, both cases, it's a sort of veneer of reference.