Do You Have a Right to be Willfully Ignorant?

[Quetzal]

This is true. I have, on rarer occasion, seen the term used respectfully (such as in the OP). It is unfortunately an exception that proves the general rule to this one's observations. There were some folks on a web forum I used to use years ago who basically used that phrase as a weapon against anyone who disagreed with them on a particular topic. It really, really soured me to the entire phrase.

In that case, I agree 100%. In my opinion, I don't think the phrase should be used in discussion at all. If someone is really being that stubborn where you feel the need to use it, might be better to just agree to disagree and step away.

 

[savagewind]

As @YmirGF just noted, it seems to me that everyone is "willfully ignorant" - it's an inevitable aspect of having a worldview, or being a finite and limited animal instead of am omnipresent and omnipotent being. It is also not uncommon for us to seek to preserve our own worldview, because it informs our entire way of life and who we are as people. Why we would shame that with phrases like "willfully ignorant" is something I have trouble understanding. It's similar to shaming the person as a whole, saying they should not be what they are, and should be something different (usually, that they should be like us because we are right and they are wrong). Why should the classical monotheist be anything other than "mentally blind" to polytheism (or vice versa)? I don't have a problem with this, and I don't get why we need to call that "willfully ignorant" or other such derogatory things.

I agree with this. I think a problem arises if people TEACH it. And they do. Do you agree that it would be wrong to teach it or are you going to pretend I never said that?

 

[savagewind]

I am showing you something. Are you going to see it? Imagine the kind of thinking that we are discussing getting into the DNA. A good thing or something to be avoided?

Another example of why that kind of thinking can cause serious disturbances.
In any relationship there are things a person likes and dislikes about their mate.
Some people have developed a mind that can see what bad the mate does but can not see the good he or she does. It is probably a major cause of family split ups.

 

[Underhill]

Everyone absolutely has the right to be willfully ignorant, and furthermore no one has the right to force wisdom, knowledge, or intelligence upon another human being. If this means that the planet gets blown to smithereens by a nuclear blast or baked like a Christmas goose due to global warming, then that is just what must be.

If you want people to agree with your perspective learn to be persuasive. No matter how ignorant you think another person's perspective is, you are far more likely to convince them to see your side if you take a few moments of your time to genuinely try to see theirs. Even something as clearly ignorant as racism is better corrected through open positive conversation than any attempted use of force.

People do not however have the right to convert their ignorance into actions that cause direct harm to other beings. You cannot punish thoughts and opinions no matter how justified you might feel, only actions. I will always prefer living among the ignorant to living under the thumb of a Big Brother figure who attempts to force agreement from above rather than attempting to understand the root of the problems we face collectively.

I agree. But we also have the right to be disdainful of the ignorant and obtuse. In fact I encourage it. I think there isn't enough mockery of those who are factually wrong. I'm not talking about lack of intelligence, that is beyond the control of the person. I'm talking about people who should know better and continue to persist in publicly spreading idiocy.

When a politician says something that is wrong, not opinionated but factually inaccurate, every news agency should say so.

 

[LuisDantas]

In a representative democracy, where your decisions on may broadly impact others, do you have a right to be willfully ignorant?

No. Nor in any other system.

Any person who lives in a society leaves a "footprint" of sorts. Only true hermits could claim a right to voluntary ignorance.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

In a representative democracy, where your decisions on may broadly impact others, do you have a right to be willfully ignorant?

For example: Do you have a right to be willfully ignorant of evolution when voting for a school board member who opposes the teaching of evolution in the public schools?

Again, do you have a right to be willfully ignorant of vaccines when deciding whether to have your child vaccinated?

Again, do you have a right to be willfully ignorant of the structural basis for racism when voting for a politician who favors ending affirmative action?

Yes, you do. However, even enforced education wouldn't change most people's minds about their views. Most people's views and decisions are rarely, or only slightly, based on information or reason. Any actual information is filtered and used as nothing more than a rationalization after-the-fact, at best.

 

[savagewind]

It is no wonder why the U.N. does not work very well.

 

[Sapiens]

I choose to be "willfully ignorant" of virtually all corporate advertising and refuse to take any action to subject myself to the brainwashing techniques that get called "marketing" in my culture. The capitalists would call this a "problem." Those who object to "willful ignorance" would need to call this dangerous.

[note - I utterly despise the phrase "willful ignorance" - it is another way of saying "I don't agree with your view of the world and want an intellectually haughty way of putting you down and putting myself up"]

Willful ignorance, to my way of thinking, is the demand, rooted in an ancillary agenda, that you be permitted to have your own, demonstrably bizarre set of proprietary facts, even in the face of these 'private facts" being unimpeachable falsified.

 

[Quintessence]

Willful ignorance, to my way of thinking, is the demand, rooted in an ancillary agenda, that you be permitted to have your own, demonstrably bizarre set of proprietary facts, even if the face of these 'private facts" being unimpeachable falsified.

It is? Interesting that you see it that way, because I do not.

Though it seems to me that until we turn all humans into computers and can forcibly program them with "correct" facts, people are permitted to have their own points of view because... well... we can't exactly stop them from having different points of view (criminal acts notwithstanding).

 

[savagewind]

It is? Interesting that you see it that way, because I do not.

Though it seems to me that until we turn all humans into computers and can forcibly program them with "correct" facts, people are permitted to have their own points of view because... well... we can't exactly stop them from having different points of view (criminal acts notwithstanding).

In some people's minds discordant ideas dwell together. You might try to tell them that one thought invalidates the another one, but they do not care.

An example that I have seen a lot is some people, actually most believing people, it seems, refuse to believe anything written in scripture can be wrong. Their reason? If something is wrong it is all wrong

I am sorry. Wrong thread. Political. I will shut up now.

Except that I think a person may vote without knowing the facts. It is called a faith vote and I believe in faith votes.

 

[Sapiens]

It is? Interesting that you see it that way, because I do not.

Though it seems to me that until we turn all humans into computers and can forcibly program them with "correct" facts, people are permitted to have their own points of view because... well... we can't exactly stop them from having different points of view (criminal acts notwithstanding).

I am not suggesting stopping anyone from doing or saying anything. Just as I recognize a KKKer's right to free speech, I recognize a fundamentalist's right to willful ignorance. But that does not mean I will not point both of them out when I see them.

 

[Brian Schuh]

In a representative democracy, where your decisions on may broadly impact others, do you have a right to be willfully ignorant?

For example: Do you have a right to be willfully ignorant of evolution when voting for a school board member who opposes the teaching of evolution in the public schools?

Again, do you have a right to be willfully ignorant of vaccines when deciding whether to have your child vaccinated?

Again, do you have a right to be willfully ignorant of the structural basis for racism when voting for a politician who favors ending affirmative action?

Don't assume that just because one doesn't believe in evolution, that he must be ignorant of it.

I had a professor in college who opposed affirmative action, because it robbed him of dignity. An employer threw his resume in the garbage and said he was hired just because of his black skin. He walked away from that $100,000/yr job for a minimum wage job to keep his dignity.

 

[Meander_Z]

Great bumper sticker, terrible in practice. If someone has a sound base of knowledge and they are challenged by someone who doesn't, they should not change anything.

They should change their approach. Everyone thinks they are right. Everyone thinks their knowledge is sound. We live in a world where everyone thinks everyone else is stupid, they rarely apply that label to themselves, and when they do it's usually a sign of embarrassment, not a confession that they are aware that they possess inferior reasoning.

What you mean to say is that if someone as capable of producing a superior argument from an objective standpoint they should be acknowledged as superior without further questions. May I point out that at one point there was a superior objective argument in favor of eugenics. It took a World War and attempted genocide to refute that particular argument. Everything should be questioned all the time by everyone. Not everyone does this, it still doesn't mean they should have questions imposed upon them. Those who choose to think will think, those who choose to follow will follow, those who choose to rebel will rebel. All of these behaviors are necessary to forming, improving, and discarding ideas.

Your idea isn't superior because it's yours, it isn't superior because it seems sound, or even because the most educated among your contemporaries agree with you. It is only superior if it takes hold and lasts long enough to inspire new and better ideas. It is time and popular participation that sorts crap ideas from brilliant ones. Socrates was the one that pointed out that a wise man doubts and a foolish man claims to know. Forming knowledge is a process to participate in, not an achievement to gloat about. There is always another unknown beyond the horizon that threatens to change everything.

Knowing yourself, the weaknesses of your own reasoning, and maintaining the flexibility to change your understanding as new information becomes available is the only way to participate in the formation of knowledge in a progressive way, otherwise you become just another road block that the rest of us must navigate around. No worries though, we do know how to navigate around road blocks, we are flexible and willing to understand you, even if we don't agree.

 

[Quetzal]

Everyone thinks they are right. Everyone thinks their knowledge is sound.

The problem is not everyone is right and not everyone is sound. If your knowledge base in rooted in empirical experience and knowledge, it is much easier to change/modify your opinion than if it is rooted in abstract/dated traditions. In that way, it is my opinion, that there are certain bodies of knowledge that are more accurate than others. Thus, some bodies of knowledge are better than others.

 

[Sapiens]

The problem is one of falsification vs proof and binary thinking. Nothing (save math and formal logic) can be proved, only falsified. The best on can do is assign probabilities to things. A lot of people see the world as black or white and also operate under the delusion that the things they believe have been proven. They are unwilling (or unable) to modify their internal probabilities to accommodate new information.

 

[Meander_Z]

Correct, but my take is that if someone is willfully ignorant. That is, not knowing and refusing to take any action to correct it has the potential to be a problem.

I think if we use your basis of defining willfully ignorant, then we can go in two directions. I am willfully ignorant of calculus, because I don't use calculus and my lack of use does not impact anyone, that is hardly a problem. If I however am willfully ignorant of the concept of civil liberties and I'm in a position of authority over civilians, then we might have a pretty major problem, one that can be corrected only after willful ignorance crosses over into a violation of civil liberties. If a person is willfully ignorant of civil liberties yet manages to conduct themselves without violating anyone's civil liberties, by chance, or intuition, or some other system of reasoning, we hardly need to scream at them about their ignorance.

However when I read someone discussing willful ignorance in a forum such is this one. I usually assume that they are not talking about a clearly defined combination of will and ignorance as it may be expressed by the collective human population, but are more likely referring to "all of those people who refuse to agree despite my obviously apparent brilliance." My previous responses have been directed toward that genius in our midst, and not necessarily toward the humble soul inquiring about willful ignorance as a general concept. However I still stand by my previous statements, that are in agreement with others here. Ignorance is far less dangerous and disturbing than the idea of someone who thinks they know everything, attempting to regulate behaviors and beliefs based on their limited idea of superior knowledge.

 

[Brian Schuh]

Read "Not by Chance" you can find it for sale on www.asknoah.org. It is written by scientists who poke holes in the theory of evolution, which is easy to do. Their argument is not ironclad, but is convincing that Intelligent Design is still the only explanation when every side of the argument is equally heard.

"Nothing can keep a man in perpetual ignorance like contempt prior to investigation." I don't care if you are willfully ignorant or not, as long as you don't show contempt for what you don't know.

 

[Quintessence]

Ignorance is far less dangerous and disturbing than the idea of someone who thinks they know everything, attempting to regulate behaviors and beliefs based on their limited idea of superior knowledge.

Could you expand on why you feel that way?

In some respects, I wonder if it is the dangers of alleged ignorance that are more insidious. Unlike the overt behaviors of the know-it-all regulators, the potential affects of ignorance are hidden and easily fly beneath our radars. It is more difficult to quantify and pin down, as the trail it leaves is like a flickering shadow. We can easily see the effects of a totalitarian dictator. The effects of the death of an idea are quiet whispers, that are at times, never heard.

 

[Sapiens]

Read "Not by Chance" you can find it for sale on www.asknoah.org. It is written by scientists who poke holes in the theory of evolution, which is easy to do. Their argument is not ironclad, but is convincing that Intelligent Design is still the only explanation when every side of the argument is equally heard.

Lee Spetner is an engineer and a physicist and a biological ignoramus. For example:

• His speciation model conflicts with his own data and with the literature.
• He confuses 'reproductive isolation' and 'genetic distance'.
• He does not understand that reproductive isolation can be fast, as fast as 12 generations.

From a review of Lee Spetner's "NOT BY CHANCE!" by Gert Korthof:

Lee Spetner, a physicist, presented a scientific (mathematical) critique of neo-Darwinism and scientific, but controversial alternatives. He has religious motives, and religious escape routes. He asked non-orthodox but stimulating questions and presented some unorthodox answers. Spetner published in mainstream peer-reviewed scientific journals: Journal of Theoretical Biology in 1964, and Nature in 1970. In that sense he is an insider and contributed to science. At the same time he makes himself an outsider, by ignoring knowledge about speciation. He accepts controversial results about nonrandom mutation and builds his own theory: the 'Non Random Evolutionary Hypothesis' on those controversial results. Spetner explains these results by a mysterious 'set up' of the genome.

Spetner is not a Young Earth Creationist. He probably accepts the Big Bang, but avoids questions such as the age of the earth and the chronological order of fossils in the fossil record, so he doesn't need to explain that the fossils are in the right order. He avoids mentioning the universality of the genetic code, so he doesn't need to explain why all life on earth has the same genetic language. He avoids discussing the hierarchic structure of life, so he misses crucial evidence for the common descent of all life. Furthermore he misses the central task of biology: explaining the existence of a million species. He constructed his 500-step speciation model as a disproof of neo-Darwinism and macro-evolution, but the situation is more complex than that. Evidence for the common descent of life (fact) does not depend upon the truth of neo-Darwinism (mechanism), because there is a difference between the fact and the mechanism of evolution.

His criticism of Dawkins weasel experiment shows that a defense of evolution is incomplete without a full account of the conditions that make evolution work. Spetner himself pretended to give a full scientific account of population genetics in a short popular book. The value of Spetner's 'Could it work?'-approach is that it stimulates critical thinking about the problems and solutions of neo-Darwinism. Especially because he is trying to refute neo-Darwinism. An approach which is absent from introductory textbooks. Textbooks present established facts and omit nasty unsolved problems. Textbooks and to a lesser degree scientific journals tend to ignore crucial questions of how new genes are created and focus on neutral or slightly deleterious mutations and 'purifying' selection. The title 'Not By Chance!' is misleading, because evolution has a random component (mutation) and a non-random component (natural selection). Spetner's dream: a physicist falsifies the foundations of modern biology, or in his own words "shattering the modern theory of evolution", did not come true.

 

[Sapiens]

Stop talking so bad about yourself! It's alright that you believe we came from apes! Not everyone can be right about everything!

I do not believe that we came from apes. I've told you this often. I think it highly probable that we are all apes.