Use of “Sunrise” and “Sunset” as Harmful Misinformation or Disinformation?

TRANSCEND MEMBERS, 16 Dec 2024

Anthony Judge | Laetus in Praesens - TRANSCEND Media Service

Complicity of Science in Unquestionable Dissemination of Harmful “Fake News”

Introduction

16 Dec 2024 – Considerable focus is currently placed on the harmful consequences of many forms of information. There is considerable confusion about how “harmful” is to be understood globally, as with the distinction between “misinformation”, “disinformation” and “fake news” in that regard (Varieties of Fake News and Misrepresentation, 2019). Particular concern is evoked with regard to its implications for political processes and electoral campaigns. More subtle are the concerns with regard to the creation and crafting of mainstream narratives. The weaponisation of information through propaganda has long been a feature of warfare and the mobilization of populations and their engagement in unquestioning opposition to an enemy. Arguable the many questionable uses could be framed as a new science (Towards a Science of Misinformation and Deception, 2021).

Advertising has long been able to exploit  confusion with regard to claims potentially challenged as excessive and misleading — and the consequences of misselling and overselling — all skillfully legitimated by framing as puffery. Far less obvious are the claims by the religious, as with “Jesus Saves”, in contrast with those made by science (Comparability of Vaxxing Saves with Jesus Saves as Misinformation? 2021; Reframing Fundamental Belief as Disinformation? 2020). Written just prior to Christmas, especially problematic are lies-to-children — and most obviously those relating to Santa Claus with their commercial exploitation.

In parallel with such concerns are the sensitivities now widely evoked with regard to discriminatory language deemed to be harmful with respect to issues of race, ethnicity, sexuality, ability, culture, religion, and the like. Whether controversial or not, such language is increasingly removed from place names, signage and legislation (Understanding hate speech, United Nations; Inclusive Language Guide, American Psychological Association; Carmen Cervone, et al, The Language of Derogation and Hate: functions, consequences, and reappropriation, Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 40, 2020, 1; Language usage: Non-discriminatory language, University of New England; Christine Ro, The pervasive problem of ‘linguistic racism’, BBC, 3 June 2021).

It is within this context that consideration should seemingly be given to potentially harmful language in science (Richard de Grijs, Offensive or Inclusive Language in Scientific Communication? The Scholarly Kitchen, 1 March 2022). There it is noted, for example, that NASA announced in August 2020 that it would retire the use of potentially offensive astronomical nicknames. Citing a beetle named Anophthalmus hitleri, similar concerns have been expressed by biologists regarding the names of species (When Species Names Are Offensive, Should They Be Changed? Yale Environment 360, 4 January 2024). However no reference is made to the problematic use of “sunrise” and “sunset” — and the consequences to which this may give rise in reinforcing a worldview that is effectively a betrayal of Galileo as an early icon of science. Ironically the use of such terms reinforces a “Flat Earth” perspective purportedly deprecated in a global society, most notably by science.

Curiously there are compilations of terms in other languages recognizing phenomena understood otherwise than in English (Howard Rheingold, They Have a Word for It: a lighthearted lexicon of untranslatable words and phrases, 2000; Adam Jacot de Boinod, Meaning of Tingo — and other extraordinary words from arond the world, 2008; Sara Gates, 28 Genius Depictions Of Words With No Direct English Translation, HuffPost, 9 May 2014; Anjana Iyer, Found In Translation, Behance).

TO CONTINUE READING Go to Original – laetusinpraesens.org

Share this article: email mastodon facebook 🔗 copy link

DISCLAIMER: The statements, views and opinions expressed in pieces republished here are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of TMS. In accordance with title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. TMS has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is TMS endorsed or sponsored by the originator. “GO TO ORIGINAL” links are provided as a convenience to our readers and allow for verification of authenticity. However, as originating pages are often updated by their originating host sites, the versions posted may not match the versions our readers view when clicking the “GO TO ORIGINAL” links. This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

There are no comments so far.