[Fis] LECTURE RESPONSES UP TO 23.01.20

[Loet Leydesdorff]

>How do the code and progress of science ‘operate’? Also, falseness is 
>not restricted only to leaders. Finally, for better understanding, 
>Louis XIV may well be called the Great King of the codification, but 
>the contrast with Caligula is not warranted since I did not claim such 
>a role for him. For me, a theory of falsehood, as of disinformation, 
>begins with intent.
>

I mentioned Louis XIV because during the 18th century and mainly in 
France one can witness the construction of state apparatuses which rely 
on the organization of knowledge; for example, in hospitals and 
engineering. In the earlier period, deviant opinion could easily be 
considered as heresy.  This changes, when the communication of knowledge 
becomes focal: Du choc des opinion jaillit la vérité!

Best,
Loet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loet Leydesdorff

Professor emeritus, University of Amsterdam
Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR)

loet en leydesdorff.net <mailto:loet en leydesdorff.net>; 
http://www.leydesdorff.net/
Associate Faculty, SPRU, <http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/>University of 
Sussex;

Guest Professor Zhejiang Univ. <http://www.zju.edu.cn/english/>, 
Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, ISTIC, 
<http://www.istic.ac.cn/Eng/brief_en.html>Beijing;

Visiting Fellow, Birkbeck <http://www.bbk.ac.uk/>, University of London;

http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYAAAAJ&hl=en
ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7835-3098;

------ Original Message ------
From: "Joseph Brenner" <joe.brenner en bluewin.ch>
To: "fis" <fis en listas.unizar.es>
Cc: pcmarijuan.iacs en aragon.es
Sent: 1/23/2020 4:27:09 PM
Subject: [Fis] LECTURE RESPONSES UP TO 23.01.20

>Dear Friends and Colleagues,
>
>
>
>Herewith as promised is my second group of comments. Since there are 
>some things with which I can agree in most responses, they will be 
>indexed D/A, rather than D. Rather than separate them for another later 
>group, I have also included comments with which I agree, designated A2.
>
>
>
>I look forward to your responses as the basis for the final phase of 
>the discussion.
>
>
>
>Thank you and best wishes,
>
>
>
>Joseph
>
>
>
>
>
>D/A.1 03.01 Michel was quite positive on the intent of the Lecture, and 
>I accept his thanks. I placed his comments in this category simply 
>because I felt he was arguing from examples that were too binary, such 
>as optical illusions.
>
>
>
>A2.1 Mark’s emphasis in this note on communication and complexity and 
>its ‘management’ are right on. It can and will be included in the final 
>summary of possible FIS ‘actions’.
>
>
>
>D/A.2 18.01 As Loet knows, I have great respect for his theory of 
>communication. I just think his critique of the notion of truth could 
>have been stated more positively. How do the code and progress of 
>science ‘operate’? Also, falseness is not restricted only to leaders. 
>Finally, for better understanding, Louis XIV may well be called the 
>Great King of the codification, but the contrast with Caligula is not 
>warranted since I did not claim such a role for him. For me, a theory 
>of falsehood, as of disinformation, begins with intent.
>
>
>
>A2.3 18.01 Stan points correctly to the dialectics of modern art, where 
>distortions are ‘false’, markers of an artist’s sensibility. 
>Photography in contrast is ‘correct’, but can itself be manipulated as 
>disinformation. Art is not disinformation, however, since there is no 
>intent to deceive for material gain.
>
>
>
>A2.4 20.01 Again, I take from this comment by Pedro on the parallel 
>‘communication’ thread the need to refocus on disinformation and the 
>possibility of its detection.
>
>
>
>D/A.3 21.01 I (Joseph) accept the rebuke of Pedro and an off-line 
>member of the group. The latter stated that my tone was ‘Fascist’. In 
>agreeing, with apologies, I note that an ‘anti-Fascist’ manifesto can 
>still have a Fascist tone, to be avoided. My criticism of cultural 
>relativism still stands for further discussion.
>
>
>
>A.4 22.01 Terry’s note goes to the heart of intent and its complexity. 
>I tend to think that ‘cultural-hyper-relativism’, produced with the 
>intention only to persuade and not to mislead is mis-information, but 
>is probably quite rare.
>
>His second point comes back to the problem of markers for 
>disinformation or rather disinforming. It will add to the body of 
>comments along these lines.
>
>
>
>A.5 22.01 Pedro discusses how disinformation can arise in situations 
>involving large bodies of knowledge as well as the new media, which 
>overlap. There is a link to emotional reactions to, I suppose, both 
>information annd disinformation that in and of itself may be a form of 
>disinformation, depending as always, as I see it, on intent.
>
>
>
>D.1 22.01 I (Joseph) regret that Krassimir not taken just one fact and 
>given his expert analysis of it. As to some comments by others being at 
>the ‘wiki-level’, that seems a polite and accurate way of describing 
>them.
>
>I do not see, however, without further discussion which I hope he will 
>provide, how a theory that describes the relations of mathematical 
>entities (morphisms) and ways of mapping between them (functors) can 
>apply to information process phenomena. A structure is not necessarily 
>a static entity. The term meta- is used in the sense of both ‘about’ 
>and ‘beyond’; especially in the second use, I do not see a requirement 
>for the principle, from category theory, of exclusivity and 
>exhaustivity. There is no need for absolute separation between, say, 
>between physics and metaphysics. I think there is a lot more to be said 
>about the dynamic structure of information and disinformation in this 
>sense because I see in it the possibility for new markers for 
>disinformation. I hope this justifies my having gone to this length.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
------------ pr�xima parte ------------
Se ha borrado un adjunto en formato HTML...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20200124/86aab2e5/attachment-0001.html>