First, I will apologize. I'm trying to keep "election"-buzz on minimum inside this community, focusing on more scientific topics. That said, although, this is election-related, it is kind of "brainstorming" post I initially envisioned for this community.

I personally like to glance through media, including media that goes against my personal biases. The reason behind is my firm conviction that facts are independent of personal viewpoint. In short, if something is really "a fact", both CNN, Guardian and Daily Wire should be in agreement about it. If something is an opinion, assertion etc, it will be pushed by one view point and not by the other.

What peaked my interest recently are reports about Georgia recount, more precisely, media reporting on it with additional claim that discovery of major irregularities are "highly unlikely". Reasoning, it has always been like that in previous elections.

Now, let us decipher facts from opinion.

The only fact - something that CNN, Guardian and Daily Wire agree about - is that there will be a recount in Georgia.

"Highly unlikely" is an opinion. And actually, the premise (it has always been) is remarkably flawed - as I see it. Let me explain why. First and foremost, there has never been election like this - election using enormous amount of mail-in ballots. And, it is quite possible that with the increase in mail-in voting, a margin of error also increased. Hence, "highly unlikely" conclusions that were withdrawn from very different elections may not be suitable for this particular context. This is actually very specific part that, as a scientist, I wanted to point out - a context does play a role in validity of certain conclusions.

That said, this is a very new context for everybody - both in USA and outside watching. And such a context is usually opportunity to make entirely new conclusions.