It's actually remarkably difficult to pin down what constitutes 'fact'. It's a bit like history - very much a process of interpreting the validity of sources and opinions whose stock rises and falls in a quite fluid fashion. Quite interesting, though...
| Topic RSS | Reply to topic | ||||
| Author | Post | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Posted Tue Jan 15th, 2008 11:13am Post subject: Dubious quality of QI research
Heh - we have easily enough material for a 'Retractions Special'. It would consist mainly of research mistakes, slips-of-the-tongue made by Stephen and guests which were not picked up in the edit, or 'facts' that have become out-of-date either between recording and broadcast, or between series. (See 'moons', 'triple point of water', etc...)
It's actually remarkably difficult to pin down what constitutes 'fact'. It's a bit like history - very much a process of interpreting the validity of sources and opinions whose stock rises and falls in a quite fluid fashion. Quite interesting, though... |
||||
| Back to top | ||||
Reply
You must log in to post.
