Fake News, Art, and Cognitive Justice

October ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 159 ◽  
pp. 14-18 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Joselit

David Joselit argues that although the politicization of information and fake news is nothing new—facts, after all, have always been ratified by power, and standards of evidence are historically specific—the mode of its authentication is now in crisis. He describes this condition as a state of cognitive conflict in which different species of knowledge battle one another for pre-eminence, rather than reach for an agonistic but productive political translation or negotiation. Adopting the concept of cognitive justice as theorized by Boaventura de Sousa Santos, Joselit proposes that under Trumpism art can be a resource for working out a politicized and materialized, even formal, theory of information. By tracking the plasticity of information—the shapes it assumes through circulation, shifts in scale and saturation, and its velocities and frictions—which is deeply enmeshed in relations of power, post-Conceptual art can have real purchase on cognitive justice.

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Bronstein ◽  
Gordon Pennycook ◽  
Lydia Buonomano ◽  
Tyrone Cannon

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-26
Author(s):  
Michael V. Bronstein ◽  
Gordon Pennycook ◽  
Lydia Buonomano ◽  
Tyrone D. Cannon

Author(s):  
Roald Hoffmann

The theme before us is “Language, Lies, and Ethics.” As a scientist and a writer I could think of the way language is used in science, how it differs from the language of poetry. I could examine the claims of science to approach truth, and how its standards of evidence differ from those of, say, the law. But let me take another tack, and begin by a look at storytelling in science, clearly a process couched in language. The moral implications of narrative will then take me to another place, to consider what ethical lessons, if any, might emerge from normative science. Science tells some rollickin’ good stories. So why are scientists so unappreciative of the necessity of storytelling for the success of their own enterprise? Why do they beatify Ockham’s razor rather than the rococo inventiveness of their hypotheses? Because they are afraid of “just so” stories. The Kiplingesque allusion points to one of science’s historical antipathies—to the teleological. Countered by a human proclivity for exactly that, the teleological, in the telling of scientific stories. Is there also a suspicion of the particularity of language, when scientists are ideologically committed to infinitely paraphraseable universals? Consider first the stories that emerge out of science. So many to choose from—the epics of continental drift, or the way one iron atom in hemoglobin communicates with another. Or amusing ones, like how the amount of vanilla claimed to be natural in French ice cream exceeds by a factor of ten the quantity of beans shipped from Madagascar. Which led to a cat and mouse game between the forgers of vanillin (the flavor principle here) and the scientific detectives who learned to distinguish between the natural and synthetic form of one and the same molecule. Or take a triumph of molecular biology, the working out of the chemistry and function of the ribosome. In Figure 27-1 is a schematic illustration—not an atom in sight in this representation—of this biomolecular “smart” factory.


2018 ◽  
Vol 41 ◽  
Author(s):  
Duane T. Wegener ◽  
Leandre R. Fabrigar

AbstractReplications can make theoretical contributions, but are unlikely to do so if their findings are open to multiple interpretations (especially violations of psychometric invariance). Thus, just as studies demonstrating novel effects are often expected to empirically evaluate competing explanations, replications should be held to similar standards. Unfortunately, this is rarely done, thereby undermining the value of replication research.


1972 ◽  
Vol 17 (6) ◽  
pp. 358-359
Author(s):  
KURT W. BACK
Keyword(s):  

2007 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sheree M. Schrager ◽  
Celine Darnon ◽  
Judith M. Harackiewicz
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document