<div dir="ltr">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal;margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span>Disinformation<span> </span><span> </span>(20200105)<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal;margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span>Thank you, Joseph, for this overture of a symposium
on intentionally misleading messages.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal;margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span>1. Discussion of connotations of some points in the
lecture <span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:36pt;line-height:normal;margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><b><span>a single
‘clear’ definition [of information] is neither possible nor desirable, <span></span></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal;margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span>If we agree what we mean by using the term, our
agreement defines the term. Whether the content of what we shall agree on, will
turn out to be an algorithm, that is: a Sachverhalt, or it will turn out to be
an idea of the category of witchcraft and phlogiston, is what we currently analyse.
If nothing else, scientific and private curiosity makes it desirable to know,
whether we shall have chased a <i>fata morgana</i> or whether we shall have uncovered,
recognised, understood a basic attribute of Nature.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:36pt;line-height:normal;margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><b><span>but even
this meta-question has not resulted in a consensus.<span></span></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal;margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span>This is what we, FIS, are presently doing. We are
the patriarchs who decide. We are chewing this question since very long. We are
searching for a consensus. We have not yet reached a judgement.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:36pt;line-height:normal;margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><b><span>structural
aspects of information <span></span></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal;margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span>The term structure has many meanings. Here, in FIS,
it has been introduced to mean the existence of more than one group memberships
of members of groups. We know that what we look for is the concurrent existence
of symbols on elements. <span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:36pt;line-height:normal;margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><b><span>relating
information to <i>absence</i> … duality absence-presence <span></span></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal;margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span>This is again in full congruence to the definition
of information, which, for the time being, is: Let <i>x = a<sub>k</sub></i> and <i>k </i></span><i><span style="font-family:Symbol"><span>Î</span></span></i><i><span> {1,2,...,k,...,n}</span></i><span>. This
statement contains the information <i>k </i></span><i><span style="font-family:Symbol"><span>Ï</span></span></i><i><span> {1,2,...,k-1,k+1,...,n}</span></i><span>. <span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:36pt;line-height:normal;margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><b><span>… what can
we say about the structure of information that is new … last 9+ years?<span></span></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal;margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span>Modesty where there is no rational reason for
modesty to take place has a literature in psychology. Please read your own
contributions in the FIS chatroom. There are also some other contributions in
that same archive, which you might stumble upon, that discuss the structure of
information.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:35.4pt;line-height:normal;margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><b><span>disinformation
– disinforming - is an intentional process <span></span></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal;margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span>Good luck with that. In the trade, one does not use
this word. Using the term ‘intentional’ implicates that the speaker, the
psychologist, does not know that anyone, the proband, can be brought to acknowledging
his, the proband’s, inner participation in the creation of his, the proband’s,
own mental creations. They say anything in order to please you. Then again, one
can influence them to say that what one wants to hear, be it by sweets or by
waterboarding, or by telling them about angels and unicorns. It is like a
Heisenberg experiment. (It is only in your head. More to that later.)<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:35.4pt;line-height:normal;margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><b><span>whose
objective is to subvert information for criminal and/or selfish purposes. <span></span></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal;margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span>The selfish purposes cause the subverted position
of information, which would have remained unsubverted, true to its original
goals and principles, if only the subject had remained true to its destiny and
not had degenerated into a selfish brute? Is this Rousseau? The writer
implicates the existence of an ideal state (ways, methods and contents of
communicating), and says that there are realisations, which deviate from an
ideal order among sentences to be said. (<i><Such1> </i>has been said, which
is a deviation, relative to the ideal order, in which <i><Such2> </i>would
have been said.)<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><b><span>disinformation
is a tool, a method of attempting domination by any means, <i>ipso</i> facto
immoral or unethical. <span></span></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal;margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span>As Bruno has expressed it, every study is basically
a theological study. It would be helpful, if the author could differentiate on
the immorality coming more from the goal or more from the tool. In studies
relating to biology, it is not usual to discuss ethical or moral issues while
comparing efficacity of strategies of survival and reproduction. Mimicry has
many forms.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal;margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span style="font-size:10pt">(On the terminology: it appears to me, that in
Hungarian and in German some people do distinguish between <b>d<i>I</i>s</b>information
and <b>d<i>E</i>s</b>information. The former creates the wrong impression, that
there is nothing remarkable to notice against a background, the latter creates
the wrong impression that there is something different remarkable to notice
against a background. Disinformation is the keeping of secrecy (bringing the
information intensity close to Zero: ‘Greek warriors: 0’), desinformation is
pretending that a wooden horse is what to look at (creating a distraction,
bringing the information focus in areas far from ‘Greek warriors present?’). Not
smelling (fawns) and smelling differently (parasite wasps doing a cuckoo in
beehives). For both, excellent examples can be found in Wikipedia: mimicry.)<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><b><span>Disinformation
can come down to a very specific, at least partly intentional process of
ignoring easily available references … Other methods include swamping of new
results by overemphasis on classical sources of only historical value.<span></span></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal;margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span>Would there be by any chance a possibility of
finding a fine example of this manoeuvre in the FIS chatroom? A historical
example would point to Gregor Mendel and his chatroom.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><b><span>in science,
disinformation becomes roughly equivalent to fraud, the dissemination of data
not obtained by actual experiments. <span></span></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal;margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span>Maybe, a terminological distinction could be made
between <i>disinformation</i>, which means the suppression, non-dissemination of
inconvenient data or theories, and <i>desinformation, </i>which publishes
falsified data.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:36pt;line-height:normal;margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><b><span>… false
accusations … can become auto-catalytic <span></span></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal;margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span>Is this the same technique mentioned by
Schopenhauer in Eristic Dialectic, known as Propaganda or <i>hasbara</i>? The
dialectic method is discussed by Aristoteles, and manipulative, threatening
signals, which should evoke in the recipient shock and awe, are with us ever
since we crawled out of the sea, and probably even before. To induce hysteria (dysregulation)
in the recipient is a time-honoured way of winning an argument. The technique
obviously makes use of the existence of a frame of reference within the
recipient which the sender targets and eventually destabilises.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:36pt;line-height:normal;margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><b><span>… ethics of
production and marketing of goods that are not vital to existence. <span></span></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal;margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span>The nervous system demands input to process. We are
optimised for surroundings of Nature which is different from the surroundings
we find ourselves having gotten been born into. For <i>homo erectus, </i>the
world was much more menacing, full of signals which had yet to be learnt. Such
of our ancestors, who have learnt that remembered experiences and present
experiences can be compared, whether similar or different, and lessons drawn
from the mental impressions being similar, these have become the <i>homo
sapiens</i>. By natural selection, we have a <i>faible</i>, a soft spot, a bias
for the similar. Yet, the physiology behind neurology keeps producing nutrients
for dealing with the different, as if we still lived in a world where everything
is a discovery (like for animals and children). Physiology appears to observe
the rule, that the natural relation between <i>same ↔ different </i>exists. Joseph
puts an ethical value on an observed fact, namely that there exists an optimal
range between: <i>same ↔ different </i>which people keep wanting to be maintained.
We as humans happen to need such things which have no other <i>raison d’être </i>but
being something different. In the golden ages, the <i>aurea saecula, </i>there
was much more excitement and diversity, and no time for boredom and monotony<i>.</i>
The more safe and secure one is, the more entertainment he needs.<i> </i>(Otherwise,
he becomes domesticated: dumbs down.) We have managed, in Europe, the
production and distribution of the <i>panem, </i>and many, apparently the
writer included, are of the opinion that less of <i>circenses</i> would be a good
idea to pursue, at least as a goal. Whether the human nature is a profitable
subject of a debate in Ethics, is discussed very much in other fields, but not
in psychology. We do not discuss, how we wish humans to be. We try to
understand how they are (including ourselves, in brotherhood with Heisenberg). <span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><b><span>… we … should
report instances of disinformation to an organ in the institution [</span></b><b><span style="font-size:11pt">FIS] </span></b><b><span>that would
insure its dissemination.<span></span></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal;margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span>There is no higher authority, civil, military,
informal, imperial or divine, on foundations of information science than this
here chatroom. Other people have even less idea about what the term information
means. You yourself are, for yours, together with all other participants, for
theirs, the ultimate arbiter on grammatical correctness, factual truth and
ethical value of the contributions published here. We are located in a model
Vienna coffee house here: people are entertaining, clever, diverse, and the
form of the exchanges is polite and collegial to friendly, just like it should
be. Your opinion is part of the opinion of the coffee house. If you think that
someone is side-lined for no good reason, go ahead and refer publicly to his
thoughts. Except for the rule of twice a week short or once a week long, there
is no restriction on who can say what here, if I understand right. <span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal;margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal;margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span>2. Discussion of denotations of some points in the
lecture <span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal;margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><b><span>Sender and receiver<span></span></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal;margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span>Thank you for introducing the subject (the acting
persona) as a participant in the mysterious kabuki theatre that appears to be
information, and two of them. You are, again, mountains ahead of me in the
cartography of possible meanings of the term of information. While I work out
the engineering specifications for sentences, you already use them and
establish, that some of them are false, used in a communicative process of
exchange of messages. <span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal;margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><b><span>Non-traditional use of the term truth<span></span></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal;margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span>Tradition was to consider false statements to be
grammatically false. You point out – clothed in words of ethic -, that a
formally, grammatically correct sentence can be false, by referring to a state
of the world which is not the case.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal;margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span>We agree, that there is a state of the world and
that there is a description of the state of the world. Your point is, that
there are alternative perspectives to readings of the same state of the world,
creating alternatives of descriptions of the state of the world, and that one
cultural observation (your) is, that alternatives are preferred (higher) while
the preference (higher) denies a natural order (lower) to those preferred,
which, had not the bias been active, would not have been preferred (remained
lower). Perfectly agree.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal;margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span>Restating: there exists a class of sentences which are
insofar false, as they describe a state of the world, which is in a <i>state A</i>,
a) only in parts, or b) by using such symbols which lead to an assumption that a
<i>state non-A</i> is the case. Both suppressing and altering the flow of
signals that emanate from a sender are equally valuable strategies of survival.
(Not-signalling happens here by active extinction of signals.) <span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal;margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><b><span>Sender exploits Great Expectations in receiver<span></span></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal;margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span>Your invention of <i>two </i>issuers of statements
about the world helps in the didactic of understanding the idea of information.
We distinguish sender and receiver, both equally able and fit. <span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal;margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span>What is important for me in your chain of thoughts
is, that both sender and receiver agree in assuming that there is an
expectation in the receiver. The disinformation <i>frustrates</i> the receiver,
the desinformation fulfils his expectations, but <i>manipulates </i>the
receiver. To be able to manipulate the receiver, the sender has to be in
possession of the algorithms, the principles, that govern the expectations of
the receiver. Such ability indeed can be achieved by trial and error in the
course of evolution. (The predator learns, which way the prey will try to flee.)
This finding of yours would support the idea, that FIS, after having eventually
reached its goal, should finalise its deliberations and land with a concept of
information, namely that information is a Sachverhalt. The Sachverhalt is a
non-reducible logical fact: a relation among facts that can be described fully.
(The set of relations among lengths of sides of a triangle is a Sachverhalt
which can be described fully.) Existence of the description stands for the
existence of facts: the description itself becomes a fact that can be
communicated. We are able to teach trigonometry to our young. The same
Sachverhalt is brought into existence in the pupil’s head as was imagined in
the teacher’s head.<span> </span>(If in the brain of
the predator a map is established in which the potential paths of the prey are distinct,
which actually agrees both to the objective map and the map in the brain of the
prey, then the map as an idea has an independent existence, irrespective of
wolf and deer.) No one needs to teach bees the idea of hexagons. The idea
behind its realisations has an independent existence, which is axiomatic in
Nature, in this understanding of communication. (The predator knows, which laws
of acoustic govern the perception of the prey.) In order to manipulate someone
by an intrigue, we must have an understanding of what this person would bite
eagerly on. The sender must share the expectations of the receiver.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal;margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><b><span>You have a place in my heart<span></span></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal;margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span>Empathy means the ability to duplicate within
oneself a system of relationships among values which is dear for the person one
is emphasising with. We have a mirror image /in the ideal case/ of the
strategies of the target, working as an app in our own brain. (If I mislead
someone, the procedure is planned in my head: I consider, what would interest
him the best so that he goes away the evening I plan a party.) The inner
representation of the receiver in the brain of the sender is an introject in
the sender. The introject has a name and a literature in psychology. <span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal;margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><b><span>Inner consistency and secrets the subject keeps hidden
from himself: a revolution<span></span></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal;margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span>Pondering on, deliberating about and weighing pro
and contra of what different inner voices say is a key playground of
philosophy. That the possibility of an inner dialogue exists was traditionally
rejected by technical sciences, which used to declare such complexities to be a
part of the trivial arts. <span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal;margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span>Joseph’s opening statement confers legitimacy,
what’s more: respectability! to discussions about sentences that are not true,
although they are grammatically true. This is a revolutionary invention in the
field of classical logic. By choosing the style of his presentation, the author
studiously avoids any appearance of a revolutionary, quasi asking for a friend,
by speaking of intentionally misleading messages causing ethical problems. He
is too polite to cry out <i>J’accuse!;</i> he avoids embarrassing anyone by not
pointing his finger to the underlying scandal: that of the existence of concurrently
true, but in their combinations generating near to contradictory implications,
of concurrent descriptions of one and the same state of the world.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal;margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><b><span>Do you hear voices?<span></span></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal;margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span>The dialogue between proponents of reading the
world from differing perspectives can be, for didactic reasons, presented as an
exchange between a sender and a receiver, inhabiting two different heads. In
fact, the dialogue can as well be conducted in one person’s head. We are
playing games with ourselves here, asking: what can I tell myself that would <i>{surprise
me, make me ashamed, better be left alone, merit better advertising, get quickly
boring, etc.}.</i> (One’s inner companion is one’s Sancho Pansa, or is it the
other way?) That, what can be said, can be said, irrespective of (solo, duet or
choir vocals) the number of narrators. The partiture of Othello is <i>one </i>sequence,
and the bits of the CD record of the opera follow each other in a sequence,
just like the letters of the telephone directory or in the Iliad. Study of Spy
& Spy by Prohias is great for further elucidation on the subject of misinformation.
If the receiver is as able as the sender, he knows equally well what would
mislead him. If the same team designed adversaries A and B of a computer game,
these could hardly ever mislead each other. To be able to do so, differing
variants of decision strategies need to exist for A, B, A’s introject in B, B’s
introject in A, so that they can begin plotting. If the adversaries – and with
them, their introjects – undergo differing experiences in their histories which
they can remember, before they meet, then the dramaturgy of the interaction
Joseph has drawn would be indeed playable. Joseph’s approach can well open the
door to a new understanding of artificial intelligence, based on differing
experiences of the participating systems.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal;margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><b><span>Summary<span></span></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal;margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span>The grammatical rules of the dialogue – the fact
that it is possible to conduct an inner dialogue – appear to put forward the
idea that information is a corollary of cyclic properties of permutations of structured
sets, therefore an algorithm, a Sachverhalt. Equally supportive of the general
idea, that information is a property of an algorithm, is the fact that prey and
predator are in agreement about some principles of spatial geometry. Animals
having adapted across species to <i>Principle Q</i>, it is reasonable to assume
that <i>Principle Q</i> exists in Nature. Congruent fundamental assumptions are
shared by the author of the lecture, who introduces the subject by discussing
that sender employs a (specific: misleading) variant of <i>Principle Z</i>, of
which sender is certain that it is present in, and that it influences the
receiver (that <i>Principle Z</i> is at work in receiver and will handle this
specific variant like if it was not misleading). This is a milestone.<span></span></span></p>
</div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">Am Fr., 3. Jan. 2020 um 21:51 Uhr schrieb Stanley N Salthe <<a href="mailto:ssalthe@binghamton.edu">ssalthe@binghamton.edu</a>>:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">
<p><span>Mark, regarding:</span></p>
<p><span></span><br></p>
<p><span>I'm interested in Stan's comments:</span></p>
<p><span>1) the idea that disinformation is a "report". </span></p>
<p><span>2) the idea that the "searcher determines the comprehensibility of information for the searcher"</span></p>
<p><span></span><br></p>
<p><span>raises a question about whether information is form or process. Is a report a "form"? (albeit one that then contributes to a communication process). Stan - do you mean to say that such a "report" is a kind of artefact? I'm sympathetic to this because it is one of the mistakes of "big data" (IMO) that sight is lost of the analytical "document" which is the end-result of data processing. It is given the "status" of truth by the agencies involved in its creation (much in the way Searle describes "status functions")</span></p>
<p><span>STAN: Disinformation is content ‘passed on’ from a presumed discoverer (really constructor) of it. It has a second level of meaning (not available to its receiver). Normally information is viewed as something ‘neat’, newly constructed by a searcher, while disinformation has been passed on from a previous (supposed) searcher. It has a purpose not determined by its receiver while ‘normal’ information is</span></p>
<p><span>guileless, without a second level of meaning.</span></p>
<p><span></span><br></p>
<p><span>raises a question about meaning, and specifically, where and how the selection mechanism for determining meaning is constructed. Immediately we back to the difference between (dis)information and meaning. If we put emphasis on the agents involved (whether searcher or producer) I can't see how we end up with a theory of (dis)information. Rather we get a theory of agency (or a theory of a transcendental subject). Isn't it reasonable to suggest that a theory of information must be trans-individual in the sense that someone like Simondon (or more recently, Yuk Hui, whose "Recursivity and Contingency" spells this out most elegantly) envisages? </span></p>
<p><span>STAN: It would be the case that info and disinfo would commonly have he same structure/form, and so, Within the Confines of Information Theory we could not distinguish them. That is why disinformation can work as a poison. Some necessary ‘signature’ would have to be attached to information in order to separate disinfo from info.</span></p>
<p><span></span><br></p>
<p><span>Following this, I have some questions. Might a trans-individual perspective throw some light on disinformation as something which destroys the coherence of the "information environment"? (While I agree with Joseph's judgement on Floridi, I think Floridi's information ethics, which he sees as a variety of environmental ethics, is good). Secondly, is coherence in some way essential to the construction of a selection mechanism for determining meaning? If disinformation destroys the operation of that selection mechanism, then disinformation can be a very powerful weapon. </span></p>
<p><span>STAN: If I understand this, I think that the disinfo would destroy the info channel, likely revealing its malicious intent.</span></p>
<p><span></span><br></p>
<p><span>Finally, I want to raise a question about the last point the Joseph makes. What is an institution? I'm not sure about this definition. What about families, churches, orchestras, universities, businesses? They're not reducible to their messages. They may be reducible to their capacity to conserve information in their operations. I think we have to be careful here: the idea of creating an "information police" is unattractive, or open to abuse (as the Conservative party in the UK showed in the recent election when they masqueraded as a "Fact Checking" service on Twitter!)</span></p>
<p><span>STAN: I would suppose that the maintainers of info channels would take care to create a catalog of possible meanings-in-context that would flag at least some disinfo.</span></p>
<p><span>STAN </span></p>
<p><span></span><br></p></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 10:16 PM Mark Johnson <<a href="mailto:johnsonmwj1@gmail.com" target="_blank">johnsonmwj1@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">Dear Joseph and Stan,<div><br></div><div>First of all, thanks to Joseph for this provocation about disinformation. I think it's an excellent assessment of our discussions on FIS, and draws attention to a very practical problem of truth. </div><div><br></div><div>I'm interested in Stan's comments:</div><div>1) the idea that disinformation is a "report". </div><div>2) the idea that the "searcher determines the comprehensibility of information for the searcher"</div><div><br></div><div>1) raises a question about whether information is form or process. Is a report a "form"? (albeit one that then contributes to a communication process). Stan - do you mean to say that such a "report" is a kind of artefact? I'm sympathetic to this because it is one of the mistakes of "big data" (IMO) that sight is lost of the analytical "document" which is the end-result of data processing. It is given the "status" of truth by the agencies involved in its creation (much in the way Searle describes "status functions")</div><div><br></div><div>2) raises a question about meaning, and specifically, where and how the selection mechanism for determining meaning is constructed. Immediately we back to the difference between (dis)information and meaning. If we put emphasis on the agents involved (whether searcher or producer) I can't see how we end up with a theory of (dis)information. Rather we get a theory of agency (or a theory of a transcendental subject). Isn't it reasonable to suggest that a theory of information must be trans-individual in the sense that someone like Simondon (or more recently, Yuk Hui, whose "Recursivity and Contingency" spells this out most elegantly) envisages? </div><div><br></div><div>Following this, I have some questions. Might a trans-individual perspective throw some light on disinformation as something which destroys the coherence of the "information environment"? (While I agree with Joseph's judgement on Floridi, I think Floridi's information ethics, which he sees as a variety of environmental ethics, is good). Secondly, is coherence in some way essential to the construction of a selection mechanism for determining meaning? If disinformation destroys the operation of that selection mechanism, then disinformation can be a very powerful weapon. </div><div><br></div><div>Finally, I want to raise a question about the last point the Joseph makes. What is an institution? I'm not sure about this definition. What about families, churches, orchestras, universities, businesses? They're not reducible to their messages. They may be reducible to their capacity to conserve information in their operations. I think we have to be careful here: the idea of creating an "information police" is unattractive, or open to abuse (as the Conservative party in the UK showed in the recent election when they masqueraded as a "Fact Checking" service on Twitter!)</div><div><br></div><div>Best wishes,<br></div><div><br></div><div>Mark</div><div><br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, 2 Jan 2020 at 20:49, Stanley N Salthe <<a href="mailto:ssalthe@binghamton.edu" target="_blank">ssalthe@binghamton.edu</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">Joseph -- Here I post a pdf version of your writing, which makes it easier to comment upon. In ot I comment upon your introduction<div>only. The rest does not in my view involve concepts, merely examples.</div><div><br></div><div>STAN</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 3:34 AM Joseph Brenner <<a href="mailto:joe.brenner@bluewin.ch" target="_blank">joe.brenner@bluewin.ch</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<u></u>
<u></u>
<u></u>
<div lang="FR">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Lucida Sans Unicode" color="navy"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Lucida Sans Unicode";color:navy" lang="EN-GB">Dear FIS Friends and Colleagues,<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Lucida Sans Unicode" color="navy"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Lucida Sans Unicode";color:navy" lang="EN-GB"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Lucida Sans Unicode" color="navy"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Lucida Sans Unicode";color:navy" lang="EN-GB">My best wishes for a healthy, happy and productive New Year!<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Lucida Sans Unicode" color="navy"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Lucida Sans Unicode";color:navy" lang="EN-GB"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Lucida Sans Unicode" color="navy"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Lucida Sans Unicode";color:navy" lang="EN-GB">As requested by Pedro, following a dialogue with him on the subject
of disinformation, I attach below a few pages that I have prepared on the
subject. I have also attached the file, but the system may not accept it. If
anyone needs a separate Word copy, please let me know.<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Lucida Sans Unicode" color="navy"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Lucida Sans Unicode";color:navy" lang="EN-GB"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Lucida Sans Unicode" color="navy"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Lucida Sans Unicode";color:navy" lang="EN-GB">I look forward to your comments, criticisms and suggestions of
examples. I will let the format for summaries ‘emerge’ from your
responses and the subsequent discussion.<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Lucida Sans Unicode" color="navy"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Lucida Sans Unicode";color:navy" lang="EN-GB"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Lucida Sans Unicode" color="navy"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Lucida Sans Unicode";color:navy" lang="EN-GB">Cheers,<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Lucida Sans Unicode" color="navy"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Lucida Sans Unicode";color:navy" lang="EN-GB"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Lucida Sans Unicode" color="navy"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Lucida Sans Unicode";color:navy" lang="EN-GB">Joseph a.k.a Joe<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Lucida Sans Unicode" color="navy"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Lucida Sans Unicode";color:navy" lang="EN-GB"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:center" align="center"><b><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:14pt;font-weight:bold" lang="EN-GB">STRUCTURES OF INFORMATION AND DISINFORMATION<u></u><u></u></span></font></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:center" align="center"><b><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-weight:bold" lang="EN-GB"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:center" align="center"><b><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-weight:bold" lang="EN-GB">Joseph Brenner<u></u><u></u></span></font></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12pt" lang="EN-GB"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12pt" lang="EN-GB">These notes
summarize some of my recent thoughts about disinformation as a valid subject of
discussion within FIS. They have emerged in part from the massive amounts of
disinformation produced by, among others, the current Administration of the <u></u><u></u>United States<u></u><u></u>
and its most partisan supporters. The notes are not intended for publication as
such, but, as usual to generate exchanges. I certainly urge readers to provide
their own examples of forms of disinformation to complete the few noted below.<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12pt" lang="EN-GB"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12pt" lang="EN-GB"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-weight:bold" lang="EN-GB">INTRODUCTION<u></u><u></u></span></font></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-weight:bold" lang="EN-GB"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-weight:bold" lang="EN-GB">1 The Structure of Information<u></u><u></u></span></font></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-weight:bold" lang="EN-GB"> </span></font></b><span lang="EN-GB">Those of us who have been
able to learn from the FIS discussions of the last, now, 20 years will realize
that they have not led to a fully agreed-upon definition of information. This
is perhaps an indication that a single ‘clear’ definition is
neither possible nor desirable, but even this meta-question has not resulted in
a consensus.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p style="text-align:justify"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman"" lang="EN-GB"> A key related concept, only touched on in prior
discussion, is the structure of information. In the comments to the subject
“Revisiting the Fluctuon Model”, of which I was one of the two
organizers. <u></u>Loet Leydesdorff<u></u> wrote
(25 Sep 2010, in part): “In the Informational Structural Realism of
Floridi, reality is an informational structure. The It-part (of the It-from-Bit
model) is in the “structure” which assumes the specification of a
system of reference. In evolutionary terms: structure is
deterministic/selective; Shannon-type information measures only
variation/uncertainty.” The immediate corollary is that the structure of
information is both real and dynamic. It is a meaningful <i><span style="font-style:italic">process</span></i>, in my opinion insufficiently recognized
(cognized) as such. The idea that structure is an ontological/dynamic process
is to be found in the work of Stéphane Lupasco “<i><span style="font-style:italic">Qu’est-ce qu’une structure?</span></i>”
In contrast, Floridi’s description is static, epistemological only. More
familiar to most readers will be the work of Anthony Giddens who captured the
dynamic properties of processes by the terms ‘structuring’ or
‘structuration’, also used in French by Lupasco. Other key
structural properties of information include - breadth: a scalar measure applicable
to categorization and comprehension (or comprehensibility): presumably a higher
dimensional parameter.<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p style="text-align:justify"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman"" lang="EN-GB"> In this period of 2011 and after, additional
seminal ideas about the structural aspects of information were presented by
Mark Burgin, Terrence Deacon and Stuart Kauffmann and their colleagues which
centered on the concept of information as a constraint on the evolution of
processes. Deacon went further in relating information to <i><span style="font-style:italic">absence</span></i> rather than only to the
uncertainty in the original concept of Shannon. I expanded this to the duality
absence-presence. Today, I would ask what can we say about the structure of
information that is new and that we have learned in the last 9+ years?<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p style="text-align:justify"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman"" lang="EN-GB"> <u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p style="text-align:justify"><b><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman";font-weight:bold" lang="EN-GB">2 The Structure of Disinformation<u></u><u></u></span></font></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-weight:bold" lang="EN-GB"> </span></font></b><span lang="EN-GB">Some people have suggested
that disinformation is radically different in <i><span style="font-style:italic">kind
</span></i>from information. I believe that disinformation has a structure
close to if not identical to that of information. The big differences lie in
the intentionality behind it and its meaning content and its consequences. For
discussion, we may try to see if there are ‘signs’ of the falsity
and intent to deceive that are perceptible and hence may characterize
disinformation. In any case, its consequences can be same as for
misinformation, but the intentionality is clearly different, as indicated
below. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12pt" lang="EN-GB"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-weight:bold" lang="EN-GB"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-weight:bold" lang="EN-GB">DEFINITIONS<u></u><u></u></span></font></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-weight:bold" lang="EN-GB"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-weight:bold" lang="EN-GB">1. Information<u></u><u></u></span></font></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12pt" lang="EN-GB">
For the purposes of this exercise, I will give my own definition of information
as a process of informing, a transfer of knowledge from one human being to
another that is meaningful in the sense of having value for his/her survival or
pleasure. It supervenes on the definition of information as data (Floridi). The
theory of information includes its communication or messaging, Angeletics
in the term of Capurro.<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12pt" lang="EN-GB"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-weight:bold" lang="EN-GB">2. Misinformation<u></u><u></u></span></font></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12pt" lang="EN-GB">
Misinformation is false information that has been generated and transferred by
accident, without any intention on the part of the sender. Any negative
consequences, even if they are disastrous, does not imply negative intent, but
the sender may still be held responsible for them. Negligence, at least in a
somewhat decent society, cannot be allowed to go without suitable reaction.<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12pt" lang="EN-GB"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-weight:bold" lang="EN-GB">3. Disinformation<u></u><u></u></span></font></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12pt" lang="EN-GB">
As I have just learned from Wikipedia, we have Joseph Stalin to thank for the
invention (and use) of the term <i><span style="font-style:italic">dezinformatsiya</span></i>,
which then entered French and English. Today, disinformation has become a major
topic of concern at the level of the European Union as evidenced in this March,
2019 article, <a href="https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2019/624279/EPRS_STU(2019)" target="_blank">https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2019/624279/EPRS_STU(2019)</a>,
“Regulating disinformation with artificial intelligence. Effects of
disinformation initiatives on freedom of expression and media pluralism”.<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:35.4pt"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12pt" lang="EN-GB">For me,
disinformation – disinforming - is an intentional process whose objective
is to subvert information for criminal and/or selfish purposes. It is
characterized by having no meaning, since there is no dialectical relation
between message and intent, and any meaning, for the disinformer, is
subordinate to his/her underlying – lying – objective. In other
words,<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12pt" lang="EN-GB">disinformation
is a lie, characterized by the logical properties of semantic, mathematical and
visual paradoxes, namely, the perceivable oscillation between limiting binary
logical states of yes or no, truth or falsity, 0 and 1. In the social domain,
disinformation is a tool, a method of attempting domination by any means, <i><span style="font-style:italic">ipso</span></i> facto immoral or unethical. <u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:35.4pt"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12pt" lang="EN-GB">My definition
can be compared with that of the EU study: “false, inaccurate or
misleading information designed, presented and promoted to intentionally cause
public harm or for profit”. The difference with misinformation is as in
the above in its intentionality.<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12pt" lang="EN-GB"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-weight:bold" lang="EN-GB"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-weight:bold" lang="EN-GB">STRUCTURES OF DISINFORMATION<u></u><u></u></span></font></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-weight:bold" lang="EN-GB"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-weight:bold" lang="EN-GB">1. Forms</span></font></b><span lang="EN-GB"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12pt" lang="EN-GB">
Typical forms of disinformation consist of messages that are incomplete and
misleading as well as directly false. Disinformation in this sense is close to
lying by omission, and in fact one could consider disinformation as describing
lying in the social sphere. People who withhold information about their
physical condition in connection with their employment are
‘engaging’ in this form of disinformation, and I point here to the
utility of using the verb form instead of the noun.<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12pt" lang="EN-GB"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-weight:bold" lang="EN-GB">2. Domains. Socio-politics of Disinformation<u></u><u></u></span></font></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12pt" lang="EN-GB">
Disinformation in all walks of life is so prevalent that it becomes –
almost – taken for granted. This is becoming an increasingly greater
danger for the society in view of the influence of social media, some of which
can now only be described as anti-social media. In fact, the only question may
be to what extent political and narrow economic objectives can be maintained <i><span style="font-style:italic">without</span></i> disinformation.<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12pt" lang="EN-GB"> There
is no obvious solution, as we are very close here to the domain of belief, from
which science is excluded. There is no overlap or interaction possible in the
information/disinformation content of the following two statements:
“Climate change is an impending disaster for which there is almost no
remaining time to avoid,” and “Climate change is a hoax propagated
by Communists to weaken the <u></u><u></u>U.
S.<u></u><u></u> economy.”<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12pt" lang="EN-GB"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-weight:bold" lang="EN-GB">3. Philosophy</span></font></b><span lang="EN-GB"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12pt" lang="EN-GB">
Philosophy and the social sciences in general benefit from the vast capacities
for identification of sources that are now available. On the other hand, these
are more than compensated by the information explosion, such that finding all
relevant references is still a difficult process. Disinformation can come down
to a very specific, at least partly intentional process of ignoring easily
available references.<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:35.4pt"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12pt" lang="EN-GB">Other methods
include swamping of new results by overemphasis on classical sources of only
historical value.<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12pt" lang="EN-GB"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-weight:bold" lang="EN-GB">4. Scientific Literature<u></u><u></u></span></font></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12pt" lang="EN-GB"> In
general in science, disinformation becomes roughly equivalent to fraud, the
dissemination of data not obtained by actual experiments. However, for data
with major social implications, such as data on climate change, its misuse is a
clear example of disinformation including a major ideological component as in 2
above.. <u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12pt" lang="EN-GB"> In
addition, false accusations of fraud or plagiarism are usually supported by a
mass of disinformation which can become auto-catalytic. <u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12pt" lang="EN-GB"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-weight:bold" lang="EN-GB">5. Advertising. Gambling and Lotteries<u></u><u></u></span></font></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12pt" lang="EN-GB">
In my opinion, there is a difference between making people aware of the
availability of consumer goods and services and aggressive advertising of them.
The latter will generally involve recourse to clearly unethical practices based
on psychological tools, known since antiquity, but whose effectiveness is
unfortunately enhanced by modern technology. ‘Creating demand’ is
an accepted professional objective, despite being probably counterproductive
for the common good.<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12pt" lang="EN-GB">
Promotion of gambling and lotteries always overemphasizes the potential gains
compared to their low probability in a specific instance. To be fair, some TV
advertising for sports now includes the message “Bet Responsibly”,
calling attention to possible, if not probable losses which the bettor might
not be able to afford.. This opens up the entire domain of the ethics of
production and marketing of goods that are not vital to existence. The authors
of disinformation are watching closely the outcome of the related debate<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12pt" lang="EN-GB"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-weight:bold" lang="EN-GB">6. “The Informer”. <i><span style="font-style:italic">Délation</span></i>
or Denouncement<u></u><u></u></span></font></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12pt" lang="EN-GB">
As a different topic in these notes, I would like to mention the 1935 movie
“The Informer”, starring Victor McLaglen. The main character
provides a canonical example of a negative transfer of information that is true!
What is involved is the treacherous transfer of correct information about one
group to its controlling opposition with disastrous results for the former, in
this case, during the ‘troubles’ in <u></u><u></u>Ireland<u></u><u></u>. The disinformation, of
course, lies in the concealing by the informer of his intentions and actions.
The French term <i><span style="font-style:italic">délation</span></i>, and
native French-speakers may wish to correct this, always has for me the
implication that the denouncement carries disinformation.<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12pt" lang="EN-GB"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-weight:bold" lang="EN-GB">7. Combating Disinformation<u></u><u></u></span></font></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12pt" lang="EN-GB">
There are several levels on which disinformation can be combated: 1) on the
personal level, correcting false information in one’s personal network;
2) on the institutional level. Let me define an institution as a group that is
present in the public domain with sufficient resources to insure the reception
of its messages by a wide audience. I separate this from individuals accessing
masses of people through social media. Let us assume that the Foundations of
Information Science initiative is such an institution. Then its members –
we – must, can and should, report instances of disinformation to an organ
in the institution that would insure its dissemination.<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12pt" lang="EN-GB">
I have no idea whether or not this would ‘work’, but I feel that it
could do no harm for anyone with the access to the FIS site to see a regularly
up-dated Section listing examples of disinformation which we have encountered.
Many further details on regulatory and technological responses to
disinformation are provided in the EU study, and some of them should be
addressed in the forthcoming discussion<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12pt" lang="EN-GB"> <u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Lucida Sans Unicode" color="navy"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Lucida Sans Unicode";color:navy" lang="EN-GB"> <u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Fis mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es" target="_blank">Fis@listas.unizar.es</a><br>
<a href="http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis</a><br>
----------<br>
INFORMACIÓN SOBRE PROTECCIÓN DE DATOS DE CARÁCTER PERSONAL<br>
<br>
Ud. recibe este correo por pertenecer a una lista de correo gestionada por la Universidad de Zaragoza.<br>
Puede encontrar toda la información sobre como tratamos sus datos en el siguiente enlace: <a href="https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas</a><br>
Recuerde que si está suscrito a una lista voluntaria Ud. puede darse de baja desde la propia aplicación en el momento en que lo desee.<br>
<a href="http://listas.unizar.es" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://listas.unizar.es</a><br>
----------<br>
</blockquote></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Fis mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es" target="_blank">Fis@listas.unizar.es</a><br>
<a href="http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis</a><br>
----------<br>
INFORMACIÓN SOBRE PROTECCIÓN DE DATOS DE CARÁCTER PERSONAL<br>
<br>
Ud. recibe este correo por pertenecer a una lista de correo gestionada por la Universidad de Zaragoza.<br>
Puede encontrar toda la información sobre como tratamos sus datos en el siguiente enlace: <a href="https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas</a><br>
Recuerde que si está suscrito a una lista voluntaria Ud. puede darse de baja desde la propia aplicación en el momento en que lo desee.<br>
<a href="http://listas.unizar.es" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://listas.unizar.es</a><br>
----------<br>
</blockquote></div><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div dir="ltr">Dr. Mark William Johnson<br>Institute of Learning and Teaching<br>Faculty of Health and Life Sciences<br>University of Liverpool<br><br>Phone: 07786 064505<br>Email: <a href="mailto:johnsonmwj1@gmail.com" target="_blank">johnsonmwj1@gmail.com</a><br>Blog: <a href="http://dailyimprovisation.blogspot.com" target="_blank">http://dailyimprovisation.blogspot.com</a></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Fis mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es" target="_blank">Fis@listas.unizar.es</a><br>
<a href="http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis</a><br>
----------<br>
INFORMACIÓN SOBRE PROTECCIÓN DE DATOS DE CARÁCTER PERSONAL<br>
<br>
Ud. recibe este correo por pertenecer a una lista de correo gestionada por la Universidad de Zaragoza.<br>
Puede encontrar toda la información sobre como tratamos sus datos en el siguiente enlace: <a href="https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas</a><br>
Recuerde que si está suscrito a una lista voluntaria Ud. puede darse de baja desde la propia aplicación en el momento en que lo desee.<br>
<a href="http://listas.unizar.es" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://listas.unizar.es</a><br>
----------<br>
</blockquote></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Fis mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es" target="_blank">Fis@listas.unizar.es</a><br>
<a href="http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis</a><br>
----------<br>
INFORMACIÓN SOBRE PROTECCIÓN DE DATOS DE CARÁCTER PERSONAL<br>
<br>
Ud. recibe este correo por pertenecer a una lista de correo gestionada por la Universidad de Zaragoza.<br>
Puede encontrar toda la información sobre como tratamos sus datos en el siguiente enlace: <a href="https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas</a><br>
Recuerde que si está suscrito a una lista voluntaria Ud. puede darse de baja desde la propia aplicación en el momento en que lo desee.<br>
<a href="http://listas.unizar.es" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://listas.unizar.es</a><br>
----------<br>
</blockquote></div>