Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 47

first rewind previous Page / 3 next fast forward last

Search results

help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 3 next fast forward last
EN
The purpose of the text is to signal the need to investigate the conditions for the preserva­tion of the independence of lawyers who practice and simultaneously engage in science. Research independence is understood in the text as loyalty to the principles of methodology and ethics of research. There have been, and will be, lawyers-scientists who are creative, well-skilled to do re­search, and also autonomous, capable of criticizing the status quo, striving for truth no matter what the consequences. In the 21st century, being in such aposition is getting harder and harder. This is due to the fact that many lawyers-scientists concurrently perform important social and occupational roles besides scientific research. The article focuses on two examples of conditions that hinder the preservation of independence and entice lawyers-scientists into the world of politics and ideology. It is: a) the activity of lawyers-scientists in the mass media and the consequences of the so-called “aureole effect”, as well as b) the “dual occupancy” and the meaning of “participation effect”.
EN
The purpose of the article is to study the sources and analyse the effects of one way of manipulating information on law in the media, i.e. the phenomenon of ‘bullshitting’ (saying nonsense, sharing pseudo-information) on law and its work. A linguistic statement that involves ‘bullshitting’ is an eristic technique in written or oral communication, expressed by the sender in a specific environment with the purpose of convincing the addressee (audience) that things are so and so and making an impression of being professional and masking the fact that the sender does not care what the truth is. The ‘bullshitter’ does not make attempts to make their input into the conversation factual; they say anything, without any conviction of the truth; they say what they do not have sufficient grounds to claim. This phenomenon is an important factor that makes building the prestige of law (also in Poland) more difficult. Without taking care of the organisation of professional communication about law from professionals to citizens, manipulating information on law will cause permanent damage to legal awareness. The author compares this eristic technique with statements with include lies, provides examples of ‘bullshitting’ on law by politicians and journalists, and deals with the circumstances and effects of the phenomenon.
PL
Celem artykułu jest zbadanie źródeł i analiza skutków jednego ze sposobów manipulacji w mediach informacją o prawie, tj. zjawiska „wciskaniu kitu” (mówienia bzdur, przekazywaniu pseudo-informacji) o prawie i jego działaniu. Wypowiedź językowa polegająca na „wciskaniu kitu” to chwyt erystyczny w komunikacji pisemnej bądź ustnej wyrażona przez nadawcę w konkretnym otoczeniu, której celem jest przekonanie odbiorcy (audytorium), że jest tak a tak oraz stworzenie wrażenia bycia profesjonalistą i zamaskowanie tego, że nadawcy jest obojętne, jak jest w rzeczywistości. „Wciskający kit” nie stara się, aby jego wkład w konwersację był rzeczowy; mówi cokolwiek, bez przekonania o prawdzie; mówi to, do stwierdzenia czego nie ma dostatecznych podstaw. To zjawisko jest ważnym czynnikiem utrudniającym budowę prestiżu prawa (także w Polsce). Bez zadbania o organizację profesjonalnej komunikacji na temat prawa od profesjonalistów do obywateli – manipulacja informacjami o prawie będzie powodowała trwałe szkody w świadomości prawnej. Autorka porównuje ten chwyt erystyczny z wypowiedziami zawierającymi kłamstwa, podaje przykłady „wciskania kitu” o prawie przez polityków i dziennikarzy, zajmuje się okolicznościami i skutkami tego zjawiska.
PL
The purpose of the article is to study the sources and analyse the effects of one way of manipulating information on law in the media, i.e. the phenomenon of bullshitting’ (saying nonsense, sharing pseudo-information) on law and its work. A linguistic statement that involves ‘bullshitting’ is an eristic technique in written or oral communication, expressed by the sender in a specific environment with the purpose of convincing the addressee (audience) that things are so and so and making an impression of being professional and masking the fact that the sender does not care what the truth is. The ‘bullshitter’ does not make attempts to make their input into the conversation factual; they say anything, without any conviction of the truth; they say what they do not have sufficient grounds to claim. This phenomenon is an important factor that makes building the prestige of law (also in Poland) more difficult. Without taking care of the organisation of professional communication about law from professionals to citizens, manipulating information on law will cause permanent damage to legal awareness. The author compares this eristic technique with statements with include lies, provides examples of ‘bullshitting’ on law by politicians and journalists, and deals with the circumstances and effects of the phenomenon.
first rewind previous Page / 3 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.