Serpent in Garden first bringer of "fake news": Pope Francis



By Jason Horowitz
25 January 2018 — 5:28am



Rome: The serpent in the Garden of Eden hissed the first fake news to Eve and it all went downhill from there, Pope Francis writes in a major document about the phenomenon of fake news released on Wednesday.

"We need to unmask what could be called the 'snake-tactics' used by those who disguise themselves in order to strike at any time and place," the pope writes in a message ahead of what the church has designated as its World Day of Social Communications, in May.

Arguing that the "crafty" serpent's effective disinformation campaign to get Eve to eat from the tree of knowledge "began the tragic history of human sin," he adds, "I would like to contribute to our shared commitment to stemming the spread of fake news."

Pope Francis has worn many hats since his election in 2013 — Vatican reformer; global advocate for refugees, the poor, and world peace; and, more recently, defender of bishops accused of covering up for pedophile priests.

But in a varyingly sophisticated, spiritual and questionable analysis of the fake news epidemic, the 81-year-old pontiff tried on the cap of contemporary media critic to address an issue that has wreaked havoc and undermined democracies from the United States to Europe and beyond.

In doing so, he offered a largely cleareyed assessment of the problem, its social impact, and the responsibility of social media giants and journalists. And he called on news consumers to break out of their comfortable echo chambers and cushy news feeds by seeking out different points of view.

Pope Francis' book on "Fake News" in front of St Peter's Basilica in Rome.

Photo: AP

But at times the pope also conflated fake news, which is politically or economically motivated disinformation, with an incremental and sensational style of journalism he dislikes — a muddying of the waters that many democracy advocates have worried is corrosive to a free press and to the ideal of an informed populace.

He also failed to mention the political leaders who have used the phrase to discredit journalists and to dismiss inconvenient reporting.

Betraying a somewhat antiquated view that separates dead-tree and digital outlets, the pope defined fake news as the spreading "online or in the traditional media" of disinformation that is intended to deceive and manipulate consumers for political and economic interests.

He observed that fake news is effective because, like the snake in the garden, it insidiously mimics real news, and is "captious"— pope for clickbait — meaning that it grabs people's attention by exploiting "emotions like anxiety, contempt, anger and frustration."

Francis identified social networks as the delivery systems for such fake news.

"Untrue stories can spread so quickly that even authoritative denials fail to contain the damage," he writes, adding that those living virtual lives in like-minded silos allow disinformation to thrive and that the absence of opposing viewpoints turns people into "unwilling accomplices in spreading biased and baseless ideas."

Russian hackers took advantage of just such conditions in the 2016 American elections, sowing discord and attempting to sway the electorate through sophisticated influence campaigns. Francis steered clear of such real-world examples. Instead, he broadly identified greed as a key engine for the spread of fake news.

"Fake news often goes viral, spreading so fast that it is hard to stop, not because of the sense of sharing that inspires the social media, but because it appeals to the insatiable greed so easily aroused in human beings," he wrote.

The results, he says, are soul-killing.

Turning to the "The Brothers Karamazov," he quotes Dostoyevsky: "People who lie to themselves and listen to their own lie come to such a pass that they cannot distinguish the truth within them, or around them, and so lose all respect for themselves and for others." This leads to the coarsening of society, Francis says.

To combat fake news, the pope called for personal efforts to unmask disinformation, but he also praised educational programs, regulatory efforts and social media companies' progress in verifying personal identities "concealed behind millions of digital profiles."

In recent years, the European Union and several European countries have established offices to combat fake news — this week, Britain became the latest. And fake news has emerged as a major theme in the Italian elections scheduled for March 4, and it is often discussed in the Italian news media that imbues the Vatican.

The speaker of the lower house of the Italian Parliament, Laura Boldrini, has backed a program in Italian public schools to teach children how to identify fake news. The government announced this month an online service through the country's postal police that would respond to, and assess, accusations of fake news.

Likewise, Matteo Renzi, the leader of Italy's governing Democratic Party, has pressed Facebook to monitor its platform for fake news. Facebook has said it would dispatch a task force to address the problem before the Italian election.

Globally, Facebook's more consequential contribution may be a major policy change announced this month: It plans to step back from its de facto role as the world's news publisher. In the United States, more lawmakers are interested in regulating social media giants as they do traditional television broadcasters.

But the pope argues that the most "radical antidote" to the scourge of fake news lies in "purification by the truth." In Christianity, he said, that means living the truth through faith in Jesus, who, he observed, said, "I am the truth" and "the truth will set you free."

Along those lines, he argued that the marshaling of undeniable facts to hurt and discredit others "is not truthful." Nor is any statement that provokes quarrels, division or resignation, he says. The truth, in the pope's reading, leads to dialogue and "fruitful results."

To achieve a climate of open-minded dialogue, Francis exalted journalists, who have been generally demonized by President Trump and other leaders in efforts to undercut critical coverage. The pope called them the "protectors of news" and characterised their profession as a "mission."

"Informing others means forming others; it means being in touch with people's lives," he wrote. "That is why ensuring the accuracy of sources and protecting communication are real means of promoting goodness, generating trust, and opening the way to communion and peace."

That message — and his appeal to cover the powerless, voiceless and downtrodden — could be found in many a Journalism 101 class. Less so his distaste for the "mad rush for a scoop" and focus on "audience impact" and "breaking news."

Also, the value on revelations that the pope seems to think is overemphasised is what many journalists would argue is the greatest service the profession can provide to the powerless, as in the case of Vatican sex abuse and financial scandals.

As the pope sees it, journalists less focused on scoops, news consumers more open to other views, and social media companies and officials more committed to safeguarding the web would open eyes to mimicry — what Francis called "that sly and dangerous form of seduction that worms its way into the heart with false and alluring arguments"— and thus cast that original and slithering bearer of fake news from the garden.

....
Taken from: https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/world/europe/pope-francis-lays-out-moral-case-against-fake-news-propaganda-20180125-p4yyuk.html

Darwin’s Mistake



 

“Why do we find dinosaur skeletons on all continents so close to the ground surface that,

in some cases, the bones simply jut out of the ground?”

 

Dr. Hans Zillmer

 

In this book, Dr. Hans Zillmer poses a series of fascinating - and most reasonable - questions:  http://www.zillmer.com/!english/e_buecher/darwinsmistake.html

 

DARWIN´S MISTAKE -
Antediluvian findings prove dinosaurs and humans lived simultaneously in coexistence

 

Was there an evolution? How old is the Earth really?

Everything seems proven: Earth is some billion years old. Scientific methods determine the ages of things. Geologists confirm the slow growth of rock strata and earth layers. Biologists prove that human beings gradually developed from protozoa to humanity. Both sciences substantiate each other’s theories. Are they one-legged men, one supporting the other? Or is the evidence they bring forth really secured?

 

If all things are exactly proven and explored, then we should ask ourselves, why we take certain phenomena for granted that we still are not able to explain. Why do we find dinosaur skeletons on all continents so close to the ground surface that, in some cases, the bones simply jut out of the ground? How come whole nests of eggs survived without signs of decay, and why were they not eaten by other animals? We simply accept that we make these findings after more than 64 million years – incredible findings, however, if we apply to them, what we know of history and the enormous time that has elapsed. Let alone that science is unable to explain, how petrifaction can take place on the surface at all. By merely lying around long enough? If so, then we should be able to observe this tendency towards surface petrifaction today. Why has no such process been documented?

Not only at the Paluxy River in Texas but in other parts of the world as well, traces of dinosaurs, trilobites, mammals, and humans were found together. The Theory of Evolution chronologically allocates the lifetimes of these living beings to ages hundreds of millions of years apart. The author personally partook in excavations proving the temporal coexistence of all of these life forms. He also proves: There was no evolution. It is merely a fictitious working model.

There have always been doubts about our view of the world. Great mysteries to some extent form our normality. For example: How did the ice ages come about? How did the rusty piece of a bicycle get into layers formed during the last ice age? Where did the gigantic belt of loess come from that stretches from France all the way to distant China? Why was the Antarctic ice-free in a more recent past, as ancient charts show? Why did the continents drift apart when dinosaurs still existed? How come we find so many tools and technical aids in age-old geological strata of rock? How is it possible that we are able to admire a 4500 year old Akkadian rolled seal at Berlin’s »Middle Eastern Museum« that displays all planets of our solar system, if only five of them are visible to the bare eye?

Many questions to which this book gives detailed answers. For the first time, a book presents a comprehensive, unquestioningly conclusive concept of the earth’s past.

 

Polish Professor prefers Devolution to Evolution

 

 

 

“Prof. Giertych showed that population genetics failed to explain the formation of races

through mutations and neo-Darwinian selection”.

  

Professor Maciej Giertych’s book is reviewed as follows at:

http://opoka.giertych.pl/Daylight.pdf

Evolution, Devolution, Science

Professor Maciej Giertych

BA, MA(Oxon), PhD, DSc.

Coloured paperback - 184pp

Now available in English.

 

Just ten years ago (11^th October, 2006), when Professor Giertych was a Member of the European Parliament, he organised a conference in Brussels on the teaching of evolution in European schools. The main speakers provided arguments from their specialist fields of expertise that the evidence of natural sciences showed devolution rather than evolution.

 

Prof. Giertych showed that population genetics failed to explain the formation of races through mutations and neo-Darwinian selection.

 

Dr Hans Zillmer [German palaeontologist] demonstrated the lack of fossil evidence for evolution, and for the co-existence of dinosaurs and humans.

 

Dr Guy Berthault [French sedimentologist] presented research studies from his work with Prof. Pierre Julien at Colorado State University that proved that the formation of geological strata occurs rapidly - millions of years are not needed.

Prof. Joseph Mastropaolo [human physiologist Irom California State University] argued that the trend of geometric increase in genetic diseases resulting from mutations demonstrated the opposite direction to evolution.

 

This book expands on these presentations to include chapters on the scientific opposition to evolution, its implications for ethics and world religions, and the teaching of Catholic Church [3pp]. The sections on mutations, sedimentology, Nobel Prize winners, eugenics, and extinction are particularly well developed.

 

Beautifully illustrated - unique in style and content. Brilliant! [Ed.]

 

'Devolution - a branch of science that, in contrast to evolution the direct effects of which we cannot see, observes a continuous extinction of species and information resources of the biosphere [the regions of land, sea and atmosphere occupied by life].

 

 

Erik Verlinde’s case against dark matter



 

 

“In his calculations, Verlinde rediscovered the equations of “modified Newtonian dynamics,” or MOND. This 30-year-old theory makes an ad hoc tweak to the famous “inverse-square” law of gravity in Newton’s and Einstein’s theories in order to explain some of the phenomena attributed to dark matter.”

Natalie Wolchover

 

Natalie Wolchover dramatically introduces Erik Verlinde as:  

 

The Man Who's Trying to Kill Dark Matter

 

in Science (14 Jan, 2107): : https://www.wired.com/2017/01/case-dark-matter/

She writes:

 

For 80 years, scientists have puzzled over the way galaxies and other cosmic structures appear to gravitate toward something they cannot see. This hypothetical “dark matter” seems to outweigh all visible matter by a startling ratio of five to one, suggesting that we barely know our own universe. Thousands of physicists are doggedly searching for these invisible particles.

 

But the dark matter hypothesis assumes scientists know how matter in the sky ought to move in the first place. At the end of 2016, a series of developments has revived a long-disfavored argument that dark matter doesn’t exist after all. In this view, no missing matter is needed to explain the errant motions of the heavenly bodies; rather, on cosmic scales, gravity itself works in a different way than either Isaac Newton or Albert Einstein predicted.

 

The latest attempt to explain away dark matter is a much-discussed proposal by Erik Verlinde, a theoretical physicist at the University of Amsterdam who is known for bold and prescient, if sometimes imperfect, ideas. In a dense 51-page paper posted online on Nov. 7, Verlinde casts gravity as a byproduct of quantum interactions and suggests that the extra gravity attributed to dark matter is an effect of “dark energy”—the background energy woven into the space-time fabric of the universe.

 

Instead of hordes of invisible particles, “dark matter is an interplay between ordinary matter and dark energy,” Verlinde said.

 

To make his case, Verlinde has adopted a radical perspective on the origin of gravity that is currently in vogue among leading theoretical physicists. Einstein defined gravity as the effect of curves in space-time created by the presence of matter. According to the new approach, gravity is an emergent phenomenon. Space-time and the matter within it are treated as a hologram that arises from an underlying network of quantum bits (called “qubits”), much as the three-dimensional environment of a computer game is encoded in classical bits on a silicon chip. Working within this framework, Verlinde traces dark energy to a property of these underlying qubits that supposedly encode the universe. On large scales in the hologram, he argues, dark energy interacts with matter in just the right way to create the illusion of dark matter.

 

In his calculations, Verlinde rediscovered the equations of “modified Newtonian dynamics,” or MOND. This 30-year-old theory makes an ad hoc tweak to the famous “inverse-square” law of gravity in Newton’s and Einstein’s theories in order to explain some of the phenomena attributed to dark matter. That this ugly fix works at all has long puzzled physicists. “I have a way of understanding the MOND success from a more fundamental perspective,” Verlinde said.

 

Many experts have called Verlinde’s paper compelling but hard to follow. While it remains to be seen whether his arguments will hold up to scrutiny, the timing is fortuitous. In a new analysis of galaxies published on Nov. 9 in Physical Review Letters, three astrophysicists led by Stacy McGaugh of Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio, have strengthened MOND’s case against dark matter.

 

The researchers analyzed a diverse set of 153 galaxies, and for each one they compared the rotation speed of visible matter at any given distance from the galaxy’s center with the amount of visible matter contained within that galactic radius. Remarkably, these two variables were tightly linked in all the galaxies by a universal law, dubbed the “radial acceleration relation.” This makes perfect sense in the MOND paradigm, since visible matter is the exclusive source of the gravity driving the galaxy’s rotation (even if that gravity does not take the form prescribed by Newton or Einstein). With such a tight relationship between gravity felt by visible matter and gravity given by visible matter, there would seem to be no room, or need, for dark matter.

 

….

Van Raamsdonk calls Verlinde’s idea “definitely an important direction.” But he says it’s too soon to tell whether everything in the paper—which draws from quantum information theory, thermodynamics, condensed matter physics, holography and astrophysics—hangs together. Either way, Van Raamsdonk said, “I do find the premise interesting, and feel like the effort to understand whether something like that could be right could be enlightening.” ….