E01¶


Research	R0002 — Research Standards for AI-Assisted Writing
Run	2026-03-13
Claim	C011
Source	SRC04
Evidence	SRC04-E01
Type	Interpretive

Fact-Checking Has Contested Epistemology

URL: Not captured — experimental run

Extract¶

Research on fact-checking epistemology (Graves, 2017) describes fact-checking as having a "contested epistemology," suggesting the field does not have settled methodological foundations comparable to clinical research. Fact- checking organizations have verification procedures (SIFT method, E.S.C.A.P.E. framework, source triangulation) and structured rating scales (PolitiFact's Truth-O-Meter, Washington Post's Pinocchio scale), but these are not formal evidence hierarchies or calibrated uncertainty scales.

Relevance to Hypotheses¶

Hypothesis	Relationship	Strength
H1	Supports	Moderate — "contested epistemology" supports lack of formal methodology
H2	Supports	Strong — confirms methodological elements exist but foundations are contested
H3	Contradicts	Strong — if formal methodologies existed, epistemology would not be "contested"

Context¶

The "contested epistemology" characterization is powerful evidence. It acknowledges that fact-checking has methodological practices (supporting H2 over H1) while confirming that these practices lack the formal, settled foundations found in clinical research (contradicting H3). This is the most diagnostic piece of evidence for distinguishing H1 from H2.

Notes¶

Graves' work also documents how fact-checkers navigate the tension between journalistic objectivity norms and the evaluative judgments inherent in fact-checking. This tension itself illustrates the lack of settled epistemological foundations.