Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Introduction
References
All Topics
Psychology
Cognitive Science

Knowledge and Disinformation

Profile image of Mona SimionMona Simion

Episteme

https://doi.org/10.1017/EPI.2023.25
visibility

…

description

12 pages

link

1 file

Abstract

This paper develops a novel account of the nature of disinformation that challenges several widely spread theoretical assumptions, such as that disinformation is a species of information, a species of misinformation, essentially false or misleading, essentially intended/aimed/having the function of generating false beliefs in/misleading hearers. The paper defends a view of disinformation as ignorance generating content: on this account, X is disinformation in a context C iff X is a content unit communicated at C that has a disposition to generate ignorance at C in normal conditions. I also offer a taxonomy of disinformation, and a view of what it is for a signal to constitute disinformation for a particular agent in a particular context. The account, if correct, carries high stakes upshots, both theoretically and practically: disinformation tracking will need to go well beyond mere fact checking.

Related papers

A Brief History of the Disinformation Age
Steven Livingston

The Disinformation Age, 2020

View PDFchevron_right
Special Section on Comparative Approaches to Mis/Disinformation | Introduction
Hyunjin Seo

2021

From misleading news articles around elections in Brazil and the United States to mob lynchings fueled by false social media messages in India to made-up stories about COVID19 vaccination, a deluge of disinformation and misinformation is affecting various aspects of citizens’ lives around the world. Although there is an increasing number of research papers dealing with disinformation or misinformation, a majority of these have focused on the United States. This Special Section on comparative approaches to mis/disinformation features conceptual and data-informed articles with international and global perspectives on the prevalence, impact, and diffusion of mis/disinformation in different countries. Articles selected for the Special Section provide new theoretical and empirical contributions to existing bodies of knowledge whether focusing on one country or offering comparative perspectives involving multiple countries. The articles, individually and collectively, offer important scho...

View PDFchevron_right
On disinformation as a hybrid threat spread through social networks
Radoslav Ivancik

Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues

Disinformation today poses a serious hybrid threat, the severity of which is exacerbated by the dynamic development and massive use of social networks. The development of the Internet, connectivity and information and communication technologies has caused that information are disseminated 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. In the history of mankind, it has never been easier to receive, search and spread. However, this progress has many positives and many negatives. In the avalanche of information that comes to us on a daily basis, it is undoubtedly very difficult to distinguish which information is true, objective, based on real events and, conversely, which information is misleading, distorted or completely fabricated, created in order to obtain economic, political or other profit. Many non-state actors, but also, unfortunately, state actors, have begun to use this fact to disseminate false information to advance their financial, political, or power interests. Information, resp. disinformation has become a weapon and social networks, which are an excellent tool for spreading disinformation in today's modern information society, have become a battleground for hostile hybrid activities performed on the target audience in the so called Gray zone between peace and war.

View PDFchevron_right
What's Going On? Disinformation, Understanding, and Ignorance
Andre J Abath

Episteme, 2025

Disinformation is a growing epistemic threat, yet its connection to understanding remains underexplored. In this paper, I argue that understandingspecifically, understanding how things work and why they work the way they docan, all else being equal, shield individuals from disinformation campaigns. Conversely, a lack of such understanding makes one particularly vulnerable. Drawing on Simion's (2023) characterization of disinformation as content that has a disposition to generate or increase ignorance, I propose that disinformation frequently exploits a preexisting lack of understanding. I consider an important objectionthat since understanding is typically difficult to acquire, we might rely on deferring to experts. However, I argue that in epistemically polluted environments, where expertise is systematically mimicked, deference alone provides no reliable safeguard. I conclude by briefly reflecting on strategies for addressing these challenges, emphasizing both the need for promoting understanding and for cleaning up the epistemic environment.

View PDFchevron_right
Future of disinformation studies: emerging research fields
Ramón Salaverría

Profesional de la Información, 2023

This article examines research trends on disinformation. First, it explores the relationship between disinformation and digital news media, highlighting the negative impact of disinformation on citizens' trust in the news. Recent research on disinformation is classified into several areas, including typological studies, research on fact-checking, disinformation on digital platforms, and studies on media literacy. Next, the article identifies several emerging fields for research, such as studies on disinformation narratives, information manipulation and international interference, artificial intelligence generated disinformation, cross-platform disinformation, and thematic and multidisciplinary studies. Based on this analysis, the article highlights the need to continue investigating and combatting disinformation, as it is a persistent and growing problem in democratic societies.

View PDFchevron_right
THE IMPACT OF DISINFORMATION
Brigid Gesami

THE IMPACT OF DISINFORMATION: A DEMOCRACY CHALLENGE IN THE AGE OF COVID-19, 2021

Disinformation is one of the biggest threats to governments. It erodes public trust in state institutions and media sources. In recent years it has been fueled by the boom in internet connectivity and internet media. Disinformation has been around for decades. Covid-19 presented states with the opportunity to impose measures that would otherwise be deemed to curtail human rights, if it were not for public safety. Authoritarian states have taken the opportunity to curtail basic freedoms and rights, while others have used it to advance their political ambitions through elections, by ignoring safety measures for fear of low voter turnout and by also taking advantage of the safety measures to cling onto power. Disinformation has played a great part in galvanizing support against the pandemic through utterances and messaging from political leaders. In order to deal with the problem of disinformation, we need to understand what the term ‘disinformation’ means. Further along, we will advance a number of theories which attempt to explain disinformation. We will also delve into various scenarios where disinformation on Covid-19 has impacted democracies.

View PDFchevron_right
Information and Disinformation Boundaries and Interfaces
Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic

IS4SI 2021, 2022

This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY

View PDFchevron_right
Dealing with Disinformation
James Davitch

Air and Space Operations Review, 2022

In order to win in the information domain, the Department of Defense requires a new capability—an information fires team, engaged to combat disinformation. Working at the operational level, such a team will include military members skilled in global geopolitics, predictive analyses, metacognitive tools and theory, open-source information collection, and internal and external communication and messaging.

View PDFchevron_right
Disinformation: The use of false information
James Fetzer

Minds and Machines, 2004

The distinction between misinformation and disinformation becomes especially important in political, editorial, and advertising contexts, where sources may make deliberate efforts to mislead, deceive, or confuse an audience in order to promote their personal, religious, or ideological objectives. The difference consists in having an agenda. It thus bears comparison with lying, because "lies" are assertions that are false, that are known to be false, and that are asserted with the intention to mislead, deceive, or confuse. One context in which disinformation abounds is the study of the death of JFK, which I know from more than a decade of personal research experience. Here I reflect on that experience and advance a preliminary "theory of disinformation" that is intended to stimulate thinking on this increasingly important subject. Five kinds of disinformation are distinguished and exemplified by real life cases I have encountered. It follows that the story you are about to read is true.

View PDFchevron_right
A Systematic Literature Review of the Phenomenon of Disinformation and Misinformation
Marta Pérez-Escolar

Disinformation threatens the virtue of knowledge. The notion of truth becomes corrupted when citizens believe and give credibility to false, inaccurate, or misleading messages. This situation is particularly relevant in the digital age, where users of media platforms are exposed to different sorts of persuasive statements with uncertain origins and a lack of authenticity. How does academia understand the disinformation problem, and are we equipped to offer solutions? In response to this question, our study provides an overview of the general definitions, trends, patterns, and developments that represent the research on disinformation and misinformation. We conducted a systematic review of N = 756 publications covering eight years, 2014-2022. This period captures phenomena such as Trump's emergence as a candidate for the US presidency, his term in office, as well as the leadership of figures such as Erdogan in Turkey, Bolsonaro in Brazil, Modi in India, and various similar populist and nationalist leaders across a range of democratic and semi-democratic societies. This period is also one that witnessed the first global pandemic, when misinformation and disinformation not only threatened societal cohesion but the lives of people. This systematic review explores the critical terminology used, the areas of social life where disinformation is identified as problematic, the sources identified as creating or circulating this material, as well as the channels studied, the targets, and the persuasiveness of the discourse. What this article offers, then, is an overview of what we know about disinformation and what gaps in research should be pursued. We conclude that given the problems that misinformation and disinformation are seen to cause for democratic societies, we need to assess the contribution of social science in providing a foundation for scientific knowledge.

View PDFchevron_right

References (56)

  1. American Library Association (2005). 'Resolution on Disinformation, Media Manipulation and the Destruction of Public Information.' Available at http://www.ala.org/aboutala/sites/ala.org.aboutala/ files/content/governance/policymanual/updatedpolicymanual/ocrpdfofprm/52-8disinformation.pdf.
  2. Barclay D.A. (2022). Disinformation: The Nature of Facts and Lies in the Post-Truth Era. Maryland, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
  3. Calvert P.J. (2001). 'Scholarly Misconduct and Misinformation on the World Wide Web.' Electronic Library 19(4), 232-40.
  4. Carnap R. and Bar-Hillel Y. (1952). An Outline of a Theory of Semantic Information. Technical Report 247. Cambridge, MA: Research Laboratory of Electronics, MIT.
  5. Many thanks to Lauren Leydon-Hardy and Chris Kelp for extensive comments on this paper, and to
  6. Jennifer Lackey, Julia Staffel, Martin Smith, Joe Uscinski, and David Sosa for excellent exchanges that helped me build and refine the account defended here. Thanks also to the audiences at the Epistemic Conference 2022, the Bad Beliefs workshop at the GAP 2022, and the Edinburgh-Glasgow Knowledge and Language Conference 2023 for excellent feedback on this paper.
  7. Cevolani G. (2011). 'Strongly Semantic Information and Verisimilitude.' Etica and Politica / Ethics and Politics, 13(2), 159-179.
  8. D'Alfonso S. (2011). 'On Quantifying Semantic Information.' Information, 2(1), 61-101.
  9. Dinneen J.D. and Brauner C. (2015). 'Practical and Philosophical Considerations for Defining Information as Well-Formed, Meaningful Data in the Information Sciences.' Library Trends, 63(3), 378-400.
  10. Dretske F. (1981). Knowledge and the Flow of Information. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  11. Fallis D. (2009). A Conceptual Analysis of Disinformation, Preprint from iConference, Tucson, AZ, 331. Available at www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/15205/fallis_disinfo1.pdf?sequence=2.
  12. Fallis D. (2015). 'What is Disinformation?.' Library Trends 63(3), 401-26.
  13. Fetzer J.H. (2004a). 'Information: Does it Have To Be True?' Minds and Machines 14, 223-9.
  14. Fetzer J.H. (2004b). 'Disinformation: The Use of False Information'. Minds and Machines 14, 231-40.
  15. Floridi L. (2004). 'Outline of a Theory of Strongly Semantic Information.' Minds and Machines, 14(2), 197-221.
  16. Floridi L. (2005a). 'Is Semantic Information Meaningful Data?' Philosophy and Phenomological Research LXX(2), 351-70.
  17. Floridi L. (2005b). 'Semantic Conceptions of Information.' In E.N. Zalta (ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Spring 2013 ed., 46 pp. Palo Alto: Stanford University. Available at http://plato.stanford. edu/archives/spr2013/entries/information-semantic/.
  18. Floridi L. (2007). 'In Defence of the Veridical Nature of Semantic Information.' European Journal of Analytic Philosophy (EUJAP) 3(1), 31-41.
  19. Floridi L. (2008). 'Trends in the Philosophy of Information.' In P. Adriaans and J. van Benthem (eds), Philosophy of Information, pp. 113-31. Amsterdam and Oxford: Elsevier B.V.
  20. Floridi L. (2011). The Philosophy of Information. Oxford: Oxford Scholarship Online. Available at www. oxfordscholarship.com.
  21. Frické M. (1997). 'Information Using Likeness Measures.' Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 48(10), 882-892.
  22. Gendler T.S. (2011). 'On the Epistemic Costs of Implicit Bias.' Philosophical Studies 156, 33-63.
  23. Graham P. (2010). 'Testimonial Entitlement and the Function of Comprehension.' In A. Haddock, A. Miller and D. Pritchard (eds), Social Epistemology, pp. 148-74. New York: Oxford University Press.
  24. Grice H.P. (1957/1989/1991). 'Meaning.' Studies in the Way of Words, Paperback edition, pp. 213-23. Cambridge, MA and London: First Harvard University Press.
  25. Grice H.P. (1967/1989/1991). 'Logic and Conversation.' Studies in the Way of Words, Paperback edition, pp. 22-40. Cambridge, MA and London: First Harvard University Press.
  26. Grice H.P. (1989/1991). Studies in the Way of Words, Paperback edition. Cambridge, MA and London: First Harvard University Press.
  27. Grundmann T. (forthcoming). 'Fake News: The Case for a Purely Consumer-Oriented Explication.' Inquiry.
  28. Hernon P. (1995). 'Disinformation and Misinformation through the Internet: Findings of an Exploratory Study.' Government Information Quarterly 12(2), 133-9.
  29. Ichikawa J.J. and Steup M. (2018). 'The Analysis of Knowledge.' In E.N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2018 Edition). Available at https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/ sum2018/entries/knowledge-analysis/.
  30. Karlova N.A. and Fisher K.E. (2013). 'A Social Diffusion Model of Misinformation and Disinformation for Understanding Human Information Behavior.' Information Research 18(1).
  31. Kelp C. and Simion M. (2017). 'Comodious Knowledge.' Synthese 194(5), 1487-502.
  32. Kelp C. and Simion M. (2021). Sharing Knowledge: A Functionalist Account of Assertion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  33. Klintman M. (2019). Knowledge Resistance: How We Avoid Insight from Others. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
  34. Kumar K.P.K. and Geethakumari G. (2014). 'Detecting Misinformation in Online Social Networks Using Cognitive Psychology.' Human-centric Computing and Information Sciences 4(1), 22.
  35. Levinson P. (2017). 'Fake News in Real Context.' Explorations in Media Ecology 18(1), 173-7.
  36. Lynch C.A. (2001). 'When Documents Deceive: Trust and Provenance as New Factors for Information Retrieval in a Tangled Web.' Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 52(1), 12-7.
  37. Mahon J. (2008). 'The Definition of Lying and Deception.' In E.N. Zalta (ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Fall 2019 ed., 16 pp. Palo Alto: Stanford University. Available at http://plato.stanford.edu/ archives/fall2009/entries/lying-definition/.
  38. McNally L. (2016). 'Modification.' In M. Aloni and P. Dekker (eds), Cambridge Handbook of Formal Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 442-66.
  39. Mingers J.C. (1995). 'Information and Meaning: Foundations for an Intersubjective Account.' Information Systems Journal 5(4), 285-306.
  40. PHEME (2014). 'About Pheme.' Available at www.pheme.eu (accessed 3 March 2014).
  41. Piper P.S. (2002). 'Web Hoaxes, Counterfeit Sites, and Other Spurious Information on the Internet.' In A.P. Mintz (ed.), Web of Deception, pp. 1-22. Medford, NJ: Information Today.
  42. Rubin V.L. and Conroy N. (2012). 'Discerning Truth from Deception: Human Judgments and Automation Efforts.' First Monday 17(3). Retrieved 26 November 2014, from http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/ fm/article/view/3933/3170.
  43. Sequoiah-Grayson S. (2007). 'The Metaphilosophy of Information.' Minds and Machines 17, 331-44.
  44. Shannon C.E. (1948). 'A Mathematical Theory of Communication.' The Bell System Technical Journal 27, 379-423.
  45. Shao C., Ciampaglia G.L., Flammini A. and Menczer F. (2016). 'Hoaxy: A platform for tracking online misinformation.' WWW'16 Companion, Montréal and Québec, 11-15 April, pp. 745-750. Available at http://doi.org/10.1145/2872518.2890098.
  46. Simion M. (2019). 'Hermeneutical Injustice as Basing Failure.' In P. Bondy and J.A. Carter(eds),, Well Founded Belief: New Essays on the Epistemic Basing Relation. New York: Routledge.
  47. Simion M. (2021a). Shifty Speech and Independent Thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  48. Simion M. (2021b). 'Testimonial Contractarianism: A Knowledge-First Social Epistemology.' Nous 55(4), 891-916.
  49. Simion M. (forthcoming). 'Resistance to Evidence and the Duty to Believe.' Philosophy and Phenomenological Research.
  50. Simion M. and Kelp C. (2022). Information, Misinformation, Disinformation. Manuscript.
  51. Simion M. and Kelp C. (2023). 'What Is Trustworthiness?' Nous, Online First.
  52. Skinner S. and Martin B. (2000). 'Racist Disinformation on the World Wide Web: Initial Implications for the LIS Community.' The Australian Library Journal 49(3), 259-69.
  53. Søe S.O. (2016). The Urge to Detect, the Need to Clarify. Gricean Perspectives on Information, Misinformation, and Disinformation. PhD thesis, Faculty of Humanities, University of Copenhagen.
  54. Walsh J. (2010). 'Librarians and Controlling Disinformation: Is Multi-Literacy Instruction the Answer?' Library Review 59(7), 498-511.
  55. Whitty M.T., Buchanan T., Joinson A.N. and Meredith A. (2012). 'Not All Lies are Spontaneous: An Examination of Deception across Different Modes of Communication.' Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 63(1), 208-16.
  56. Mona Simion is Professor of Philosophy and Director of the Cogito Epistemology Research Centre at the University of Glasgow. She has published widely in epistemology, philosophy of language, and moral and political philosophy. She is the author of Shifty Speech and Independent Thought (Oxford University Press, 2021), Sharing Knowledge (Cambridge University Press, 2021), and Resistance to Evidence (Cambridge University Press, 2023). She runs several major research projects in social epistemology, funded by e.g. the European Research Council and the Leverhulme Trust. She has received several prestigious international awards and fellowships, including the Young Epistemologist Prize (2021) and the Mind Fellowship (2018). She is managing editor at Ergo and associate editor at Philosophical Studies. She sits on the Executive Board of the Aristotelian Society, the Management Board of the British Society for Theory of Knowledge, and the Advisory Board of the Institute of Philosophy, London. She also sits on the Board of the Young Academy of Europe and is a fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh Young Academy of Scotland. Cite this article: Simion M (2023). Knowledge and Disinformation. Episteme 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1017/ epi.2023.25

Related papers

Conceptualizing Disinformation
Tim Hayward

Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective 10 (7): 10-15, 2021

The term disinformation is used extensively today in public discussions and also in a growing academic literature, but it has been subject to relatively little conceptual analysis. The term’s range of meaning seems to be regarded as clear enough in its common uses that to dwell on fine points of definition would be needless, and perhaps counterproductively restrictive. However, this article shows that anomalies encountered in the term’s use in practice reveal the need for more care in its conceptualization if it is to serve constructively in grasping what is at stake in public discussions.

View PDFchevron_right
Disinformation as a Threat to the Quality of Contemporary Information
Yuliia Turchenko, Kira Horiacheva

International Conference Knowledge Based Organization, 2021

Due to the intensification of local conflicts in the world, ensuring the quality of information is a pressing problem, which is complicated by the lack of a unified methodological framework that allows for an adequate assessment of information threats. Current methods often do not take into account the nature of the interaction of various negative factors and give an assessment only on a qualitative level. The difficulty of analyzing risks in the information sphere lies in the fact that in order to achieve adequate assessments it is necessary to take into account a large number of factors that are in a complex dependence on one another. This article describes the negative influence of disinformation on social and political processes in the state. For the study we use the experience of the United States and Great Britain during significant political events, the experience of information operations in social networks. We also agree that there are many threats to the quality of information in the modern world. One of these threats is disinformation, which inevitably manipulates reality and facts in order to cause harm or financial gain. The article states that disinformation breeds discontent, distrust of state institutions, undermines the legitimacy of power, generates unwarranted tension in the society, as well as curtails public debate and threatens the quality of information.

View PDFchevron_right
The Nature and Circulation of False Information
Andrew McStay

Springer eBooks, 2022

This chapter focuses on the nature of disinformation (false information spread with intent to deceive) and misinformation (false information spread without specific deceptive intent), inquiring into processes that increase their circulation online. As befits any study of media systems, it addresses interconnections between technologies, media forms, wider media and political environments, people and impacts. It opens with a discussion on the role of deception in citizen-political communications. This highlights the long-standing debate on whether political leaders should lie to their citizens, addressing evidence of such activity in the areas of national security and election campaigns. It then discusses the nature and scale of two key forms of contemporary disinformation: fake news and deepfakes. Widening the focus beyond intentionally deceptive forms to false information in general, the chapter then examines the dynamics of spreading false information online, discussing why people engage with such processes. deceptIon In cItIzen-polItIcal communIcatIons The role of deception in citizen-political communications has a long lineage. These span deliberations by Plato in 380 BC and Machiavelli in 1532 over whether leaders should lie to their publics. Plato advocated that

View PDFchevron_right
DISINFORMATION AND ITS CERTAIN REGULATORY APPROACHES
Judit Bayer

Was ist Desinformation? , 2020

“POLITICAL CONTENT IS AN EASY WAY TO EARN MORE CLICKS, ESPECIALLY IF THE CONTENT IST EMOTIONAL AN DIVISIVE.”

View PDFchevron_right
The disinformation lifecycle: an integrated understanding of its creation, spread and effects
Sico van der Meer

Discover Global Society, 2025

The proliferation and development of social media platforms in recent years has contributed significantly to the spread of disinformation. Police Authorities around Europe have observed that harmful or criminal behaviour, stemming from social unrest, hate speech, and violent disorder are regularly preceded by disinformation campaigns. This begs the question: How can practitioners be better prepared for the real-world consequences of malign disinformation activities and to potentially even mitigate any criminal consequences? The first step in properly countering disinformation is to enhance the understanding of the complex phenomenon. Therefore, this article puts forth a new theoretical framework, called the 'C5 Interaction Model' , that explains the creation, spread and impact of disinformation, synthesising academic theory to provide practical guidance on disinformation dynamics. The multidisciplinary model represents a lifecycle and contains five main elements: Context, Causes, Content, Consequences, and Cycle of Amplification. They are each organised into two further layers of (sub)factors, which were developed to provide a comprehensive overview and breakdown of the important elements of disinformation. The C5 Interaction Model represents one of the first concerted efforts to bring diverse insights together into a comprehensive integrative framework. The complexity of the model shows that this process is non-liner and that there are a multitude of factors determining the lifecycle of disinformation, making it a highly complex phenomenon to research. A key contribution of this article is the focus on the interaction between different elements that influence the process of disinformation-from creation to consequences. Importantly, the lifecycle route is predominantly influenced by the social context in which it exists.

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Cognitive Science
  • Philosophy
    • 580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved