Evidence for a different kind of transparency in public life
How do you decide
if what these people say is true or false?
Fact-checkers. Heads of state or government.
The UN General Assembly. UN agencies,
The World Bank. Textbooks. Academics. Journalists.
School examination boards. Others.
Global goals? Sustainable Development Goals? Solemn commitments? Global poverty?
Is what you are told true? Did the person or organisation show you their reasoning, or the evidence?
Or did they just make statements and claim that there was a document to back them up?
Over 1000 documents: Global goals and some very large-scale social science
Many of the file names tell you some key facts about what is wrong or right in the documents.
Highlighting shows you some parts you might find interesting.
UN resolutions, academic research papers, school examination papers, and other documents.
Largely in date order. Work in progress. Please read the notes at the top of the page.
On 11 April 2018, this has more recent documents than in the big document below.
Some documents quoted in the big document are not yet in this list.
Some documents in this list are not yet in the big document.
"Partial History" of global goals and some global claims
This document provides extracts from original documents such as UN resolutions, reports, communications and research papers.
It points out connections between them - including false statements.
Draft 22 March 2018, 91-megabyte download.
What is different about this work?
It shows you the evidence.
The document is several things.
It is a partial catalogue of some past and current timed commitments and goals agreed at the UN General Assembly (usually by all member states which were eligible to vote) with some regional goals agreed by relevant governments.
It is not a definitive reference work on all global goals agreed between nations. However, it appears to settle some important questions definitively by supplying the original evidence. It may help clarify, for example, whether social science claims are valid if the people using the claims would think the method invalid if applied to themselves.
It is a searchable catalogue of misinformation from
- heads of state;
- parliamentary committees charged with oversight of governments' work;
- university-published reference books;
- well-known "myth busting" or "fact checking" individuals and teams;
- academic or ex-civil servant experts on global goals;
- many others.
It is a documented history of some of the editor's thoughts, errors, flaws and actions.
It is a commentary on the reasoning, or lack of it, behind some statements about large numbers of people, where the conclusions are claimed to be based on social science.
It seems to be prompting me to be clearer on what I think the aims of politics should be.
It is not comprehensive enough yet on, for one thing, climate change.
Edited by Matt Berkley
content is also available via: