Believing without listening, Epistemic defectiveness defines propaganda, points to ponder.

Believing without listening, Epistemic defectiveness defines propaganda, points to ponder.

By Dr. Sohail Ansari

Conceived and worded by DR Sohail Ansari (originality of concepts and originality of words).

He believes that there can never be a zero scope for improvement and appreciates criticism if it is not for the sake of criticism.

·       Good slogan is the striking phrase that acts only as emotional appeals but appears to be supporting reasoned ideas; and a subtle slogan is the striking phrase that includes stereotyping but appears to be excluding it.

Believing without listening

·        Credit of lifting the censorship of Iraqi media after removing Saddam obviously went to USA. This lifting interestingly was used to lift the image of voice of America and to damage the credibility of indigenous means of communication: ‘because of lifting the censorship of the Iraqi media, truthful information of the voice of America is in a high degree of competition with the opposing forces’.  People believed voice of America as the truthful source of information even without listening it and eyed suspiciously their own media. 

 Epistemic defectiveness defines propaganda

·        Propaganda endeavors to function by investing new meanings to literary tropes or by the use of context to justify immoral commands. This epistemic defectiveness of these forms of messages does not admit to truth values; but describes well the conditions of its (propaganda) making that is calculated to create the semblance of credibility; and that must be the important consideration for the condition of its (propaganda) use.  

Points to ponder

·        ‘Confusion is a word we have invented for an order which is not yet understood’ Henry Miller is right for ununderstood order because having understood disorder we apply the word confusion.

·       ‘If a statement’s truth value is ultimately tied up in some evaluable fact, the statement is grounded. If not, the statement is ungrounded. Ungrounded statement does not have a truth value’. Facts do not cease to be facts if they are not evaluable because of inadequacy of science.