Recently the following (marketing promoting political based) statement was performed by a new Journal, named Journal of Alternative Facts, @JournalAltFacts #alternativefacts:
“There is a real risk in the world today that people might be getting their information about science from actual scientists, or from fake news sources like The New York Times or the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. In fact, this is such an important mission to us that not only are we an open access journal, but we are taking steps to ensure that we are the ONLY open access journal”
Despite questionable scientific content, also the Submission Guidelines declare:
“must not be based in reality, must be peer reviewed by politicians, must be approved by PR”
Should Science and its Community keep silent in this regard?
http://retractionwatch.com/2017/01/31/welcome-journal-alternative-facts-theyre-greatest-winning/
Dear Bjorn,
Below the spoof interview is a citation from the initiator Casey Fiesler:
".......As academics and researchers we are sometimes at the mercy of government funding for our work, and I think there has always been a concern that politicians who may not have a good understanding of science might be making decisions that could impact the direction of scientific inquiry. This, combined with the realization that “alternative facts” may be part of how many people are starting to see the world, has led to a great deal of justified distress among my friends and colleagues. And sometimes the best way to make a statement about something is to point out the absurdity....."
She has a valid point and her fictive J. Alt. Facts is an attempt to bring this absurdity to the attention of all of us. One respondent even came with a new word: "scientificists" to support Trump's team. The first article is also a piece of art and very Trumpy.
The term Alternative Fact is not even used properly. Thanks to Kellyanne Conway this term is now associated with a distorted version of the truth, if not a complete misinterpretation (of the images of crowd during the inauguration). By the way, one comedian already mentioned that the white fields were not at all empty, they seemed empty as the KKK were in their traditional attire and hence invisible against the white background. This aside, an Alternative Fact needs to be still Fact. For example, when a cancer patient gets to hear he only has a limited time left to live, upon request the oncologist would rephrase his harsh tidings to a softer sounding alternative fact: You will be financially sound for the remaining of your life. Still true.....
Dear Bjorn,
Below the spoof interview is a citation from the initiator Casey Fiesler:
".......As academics and researchers we are sometimes at the mercy of government funding for our work, and I think there has always been a concern that politicians who may not have a good understanding of science might be making decisions that could impact the direction of scientific inquiry. This, combined with the realization that “alternative facts” may be part of how many people are starting to see the world, has led to a great deal of justified distress among my friends and colleagues. And sometimes the best way to make a statement about something is to point out the absurdity....."
She has a valid point and her fictive J. Alt. Facts is an attempt to bring this absurdity to the attention of all of us. One respondent even came with a new word: "scientificists" to support Trump's team. The first article is also a piece of art and very Trumpy.
The term Alternative Fact is not even used properly. Thanks to Kellyanne Conway this term is now associated with a distorted version of the truth, if not a complete misinterpretation (of the images of crowd during the inauguration). By the way, one comedian already mentioned that the white fields were not at all empty, they seemed empty as the KKK were in their traditional attire and hence invisible against the white background. This aside, an Alternative Fact needs to be still Fact. For example, when a cancer patient gets to hear he only has a limited time left to live, upon request the oncologist would rephrase his harsh tidings to a softer sounding alternative fact: You will be financially sound for the remaining of your life. Still true.....
Sometimes the Point is, that Satire is not distinguished by the audience and if someone looks carefully within the WWW this can be seen.
By this inly, it is from my Point of view justified making such a provocative questiont.
It further seems, that there is no distinction between fiction and reality. This might be, as the Satire here in this case is not been declared clearly and due to this already now too many People jumped on that Train.
Alone out of this it seems necessary making a provocative statement as performed, although we all (unfortunately) know - and discussed with others as well - that a real intellectual exchange nearly seems not possible as intellectual arguments are not done by the known marketing machinery.
However, at least a statement needs being done, as it seems something starts already getting wrong in science.
Unfortunately every day the intellectuality in the world is at a disadvantage, Every day an aberration of this kind is put to the market orders. The real facts demonstrated by science must be defended from all this pseudoscience.
Sometimes prestigious media are at the service of this pseudoscience and are exploited by opportunistic people who only seek economic advantages or are people who are looking for recognition in any way.
Yes, I agree we must speak out against this aberrant and pseudo-science facts. It must be clear the value of the actual Scientific Journals.
luis
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Academic Journals