Use of Sunrise and Sunset as Harmful Misinformation or Disinformation?

Complicity of science in unquestionable dissemination of harmful fake news

[Parts: Next | Last | All] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx | Refs ]

Introduction

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 2020Â 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).

As in the previous experiments, the responses of ChatGPT 4o are distinctively presented below in grayed areas, with those of Claude 3.5. Given the length of the document to which the exchange gives rise, the form of presentation has itself been treated as an experiment -- in anticipation of the future implication of AI into research documents. Web technology now enables the whole document to be held as a single "page" with only the "questions" to AI rendered immediately visible -- a facility developed in this case with the assistance of both ChatGPT and Claude 3 (but not operational in PDF variants of the page, in contrast with the original). Reservations and commentary on the process of interaction with AI to that end have been discussed separately (Methodological comment on experimental use of AI, 2024). Whilst the presentation of responses of two AIs could be readily considered excessive, it offers a "stereoscopic" perspective highlighting the strengths and limitations of each.

The question evoked by this approach is what can be "gleaned" from interaction with AIs, given their unprecedented access to information generated by a vast array of authors and authorities. The approach also offers the possibility that similar questions could be asked of any AI facility to which readers may have access, currently or in the future. The questions could well be refined, and the responses challenged, given the proactive responses of AI to such interaction as indicated below.

[Parts: Next | Last | All] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx | Refs ]