Do You Have a Right to be Willfully Ignorant?

[Brian Schuh]

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.

Oh, so someone shows contempt after investigation, and somehow that permits you to show contempt prior to investigation? One book review you take as gospel truth because it strokes your ego regarding your views, and now you feel like you don't have to read the book?

 

[Brian Schuh]

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.

You have the right to be willfully ignorant of all the objections to evolution, but I ask you to not show contempt for it prior to investigation.

 

[Sapiens]

Oh, so someone shows contempt after investigation, and somehow that permits you to show contempt prior to investigation? One book review you take as gospel truth because it strokes your ego regarding your views, and now you feel like you don't have to read the book?

Actually, no. I've known of Spetner's work since the Dover trail. I agree with everything in the review and Spetner is hardly either important enough or dangerous enough to spend much time on. As the review noted: 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.

Spetner is a classic case, a well trained physicist who has the hubris to step over into biology not because he has something to offer, but because rather than admit his lack of background in biology, he exercises a rather typical physicists' contempt toward biologists (many of whom had inferior mathematical training).

Absolutely classic.

As a grad student I had to take the same Physical Oceanography courses as the Physics students, I never complained and did well, the Physics students complained continuously at having to take the same Biological Oceanography courses as the Biology students, and tended to do poorly. This is not a new "fight." Many biologists now (starting in the 1960s), have had to master the same sort of math that Physicists normally do, since has become an essential tool. But old prejudices die hard and Physicists still like to put on mathematical airs.

 

[Sapiens]

You have the right to be willfully ignorant of all the objections to evolution, but I ask you to not show contempt for it prior to investigation.

No, I am far from ignorant of the objections, I am dismissive of them ... for good cause.

 

[Brian Schuh]

No, I am far from ignorant of the objections, I am dismissive of them ... for good cause.

How many mutations does it take for an animal to have functional wings? And once a few of these mutations have occurred, if they are not advantagious for survival, they will cease to exist, since they have not led to actual flight. So what are the chances of flight ever happening? All the mutations would have to lead to flight within a relatively short period of time, or they would die out due to not having survival advantage. An answer?

 

[Brian Schuh]

No, I am far from ignorant of the objections, I am dismissive of them ... for good cause.

Whenever I present an impossibility within evolution, I hear millions upon millions of years it is possible.

Okay, 2+2= 5. Impossible, but if we wait millions upon millions of years, maybe it will be true.

 

[Brian Schuh]

All the mutations necessary for functional wings would have to be present at once for survival benefit. If a set of mutations doesn't have survival benefit, then they would cease to exist. Leading a rational person to believe that flight could not have evolved, unless all the mutations occurred at once.

 

[Sapiens]

All the mutations necessary for functional wings would have to be present at once for survival benefit. If a set of mutations doesn't have survival benefit, then they would cease to exist. Leading a rational person to believe that flight could not have evolved, unless all the mutations occurred at once.

Wrong, that is not how it works. Look up "preadaptation." or watch the excellent video where Miller puts the flagellum question to rest.

How many mutations does it take for an animal to have functional wings? And once a few of these mutations have occurred, if they are not advantagious for survival, they will cease to exist, since they have not led to actual flight. So what are the chances of flight ever happening? All the mutations would have to lead to flight within a relatively short period of time, or they would die out due to not having survival advantage. An answer?

You do not understand evolution (heard that before?) or adaptation. Here you go, something other than millions of years:

Flight has evolved, independently, at least five times: fish, insects, reptiles, birds and mammals. In each case the capability, mechanism, and selective pressure was different. There are several main hypotheses:

1. To help escape from predators
2. To help catch flying or speedy prey
3. To help move from place to place (leaping or gliding)
4. To free the hindlegs for use as weapons
5. To gain access to new food sources or an unoccupied niche

Fish are perhaps the simplest to analyze. It's all Item 1. Fish leap out of the water when chased by predators. Fish with even slightly enlarged pectoral fins can glide a small distance and thus are less likely to become prey. This favors fish with increasingly lengthened pectorals up to the point that the enlarged pectoral interferes with swimming.

Let's more to the more complex, the birds. Start out with a small cursorial feathered reptile that ran about eating insects that it grasped in its' mouth and with its forelegs. Lengthened feather on its forearms would have generated increased fitness by expanding it's niche as a result of using those feather to better catch insects, especially smaller ones that otherwise would have escaped. So there is selective pressure for longer and longer feathers on its arms. Like the fish example, these small cursorial feathered reptiles could get more of a hop and even a little glide which would have further raised their fitness. Now you have all the preadaptation needed to progress to full flight: a light body, and airfoil, a warm-blooded power-plant, and a propensity for getting up off the ground that is reward by an increased food supply. Now all five of the items above come into play.

 

[Revoltingest]

Good point.
I have a real example. There is a religion which teaches conscientious stupidity. In fact, to be a proper member one must embrace sincere ignorance. Many people think that they have chosen to trust that way and so they should be left alone to do as they will. I think that is somewhat correct. I fear God that I might not stray far away from the will of The One. So how do I know it is proper and right to speak against willful ignorance? I accept that I might be wrong. I consider something that I heard them (them because they are one mind, not many) say which is exactly this; "soon six billion hearts will stop beating".. I consider those words my permission to speak out about them. I do not know that they are wrong but I know that statement is wrong. I am not sincerely ignorant. I may say what I know to be true. Many people agree with telling the truth as one sees it, but they are sincerely ignorant of the fact that they think not everyone has the right to do it.

I hope it's not a popular religion.

 

[savagewind]

I hope it's not a popular religion.

I guess it is 1% of the world's population. When I mention that I heard an elder say that, the faithful will say he meant it symbolically.
There are strict rules about what may be said at conventions and speakers loosely follow a script so what he said seems to have had clearance.
Luke 6:45 Matthew 12:33-35 Proverbs 4:23
Children are taught to pay attention to what is being said there.

 

[Revoltingest]

I guess it is 1% of the world's population. When I mention that I heard an elder say that, the faithful will say he meant it symbolically.
There are strict rules about what may be said at conventions and speakers loosely follow a script so what he said seems to have had clearance.
Luke 6:45 Matthew 12:33-35 Proverbs 4:23
Children are taught to pay attention to what is being said there.

Uh oh....1% is quite a bit..

 

[savagewind]

Uh oh....1% is quite a bit..

No. .1 percent. Oh good! The people of Earth are safe!

 

[Meander_Z]

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.

Let's look at the nature of ignorance. Ignorance has always been here. From the modern scientific perspective, every person of every culture from the dawn of humanity that failed to develop the scientific method could be considered ignorant. Every person who makes decisions based on limited perceptions, cultural assumptions, religious traditions, intuition, instinct, emotion, or friendly advice without fully researching the viability of these sources through logical methods and experimentation, may be accused of being a victim of ignorance. Looking at the long term history of humanity, the idea that the population may be divided into the ignorant and the informed, is a relatively new concept, one that is firmly embedded in a history of racism and classism. Those of wealth and power have always controlled the dissemination of information, and it is a very new concept that all people should be equally entitled to an education regardless of race, class, or gender.

Don't get me wrong, I believe in education and I do believe that providing universal education provides countless advantages both on the individual level and to our species as a whole. I just strongly disagree with the notion that modern scientific methods of analyzing information, is the only viable, or even the best means of engaging with the world. I think these methods are very useful in specific areas, such as developing new technologies, and establishing standards for scholarly research, but for purposes of survival and promoting pro-social behaviors these methods are dubious at best.

Look at the development of the field of medicine, herbal cures and holestic medicine was in use long before scientific inquiry came onto the scene, the introduction of a scientific approach to medicine dates back to the middle ages and did not coincide with an immediate improvement in the general health of the people who were subjected to it. The process of experimentation and logical deduction lead down countless blind allies and resulted in some very unethical treatment of patients along the way. The scientific theory of germs and a practice of hygienic conditions in medical treatment were not stumbled upon by science until the 1800s, while religious prescriptions for hygiene and purification rituals can be found in some of the oldest written sources known to man. Somehow our ancient ancestors, without access to the scientific method, had stumbled upon a true knowledge that science had access to and ignored until it became a substantiated scientific theory. Modern medicine even today is still resistant to acknowledging the usefulness of herbal and holistic medicines, despite new research amassing all of the time, in support of the acknowledging that these forms of medicine are sometime just as effective, and frequently result in less unpleasant side effects than many modern pharmaceuticals.

People are continuously taking for granted that the difference between ignorance and intelligence is obvious and requires little examination, but I believe this assumption is a sign of dangerous hubris. You tell me what exactly you think ignorance is, and then we can examine the particulars of whether that insidious threat posses a rational danger to anyone. What I think you are calling ignorance, seems to me nothing more than people living their lives in accordance with the same functions that have been governing our species for as long as we've been on earth. The true threats to the survival of our species, nuclear weapons, germ warfare, industrialization resulting in global warming... these things were not invented by the ignorant, they were invented by very intelligent men, the most intelligent men of their day. Forgive me if I fail to tremble in fear at my neighbors who prefer to watch Jerry Springer over CNN. The ones that I fear are the ones on CNN, the ones who think they know things, the ones who presume that their knowledge gives them the right to make decisions on my neighbor's behalf, and consequently on my behalf as well.

I trust that the human race is learning things, we are learning things slowly, but we are learning things none the less, and faster than we have at any previous phase in our history. I trust that our collective capacity for global epiphany will take effect and bring about the changes necessary for survival, before the intellectuals of our age can send us crashing into one brilliant abyss or another. It may be a horrible and terrifying ride before we achieve global epiphany, but it will come, or else our species will no longer exist. Either way I don't blame the ignorant.

 

[Meander_Z]

Alright... I've given this a lot of thought since my previous post, and come to the conclusion that although I believe that the only true cure for ignorance is time and trauma, or possibly just death, there are some decent treatments available, that might help to minimize the threat of ignorance. I do understand how and why ignorance seems so terrifying, not everyone is well armed with my arsenal of suicidal optimism, combined with chaotic derationalization techniques that enable me to shake up my inner snow-glob long before the s*** seems like it's about to settle.

So I present a few treatments for ignorance both in yourself (the sensible conclusion) and in others (the typical conclusion).

For those who already know all of the really important stuff, and want to cut right to the heart of the problem (not recommended for distribution to the ignorant because they may not be able to follow it). Click here.

For those who feel somewhat confident that they are on the right path to knowing the really important stuff, or those who already know all of the really important stuff, but for some reason (probably the stupidity of the writers) couldn't make sense of the ideas in the previous link (recommended for distribution to the moderately ignorant). Click here.

For those who couldn't stomach either of the previous two links because they were offensive and/or moronic, regardless of your level of knowledge, in order to lay the foundation of understanding for both of the previous links, and especially designed to help relieve the problem of mental constipation, so often a symptom associated with ignorance (highly recommended for the truly ignorant, most especially the ones who are truly ignorant yet suffer from delusions of intelligence, not necessarily because it will make them smarter, but because it will turn their faces funny colors and provide me with entertainment ((even if I don't get to see it, I will be entertained, I hear a bell ring every time a face changes colors, and a giggle comes to my heart))). Click here.

For those who realized that all of the previous links require a good deal of actual reading, and are looking for a faster multi-media solution to the problem of ignorance, even though it is less likely to make a lasting impression. Click here.

Feel free to distribute these anti-ignorance resources to all of the ignorant people that you encounter as you proceed along in your quest for knowledge, or salvation, or money, or sugar-free low-fat desserts that actually taste good. It may not do much actual good, but it certainly can't hurt anything. Who knows maybe one or two of them (or you) might actually decrease their willful ignorance and become a mindful person capable of inspiring real change in this chaotic world we live in.

Having just re-read two of these resources for the first time in a long time, and the other for the first time ever. I've just realized that I've been spending far too much time bickering on the internet and should probably go walk my dog. I don't actually own a dog, but you get the picture.

Peace and happy questing!

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Yeesh. The right to be willfully ignorant as an absolute and cherished right, with enough people being willfully ignorant of the same library of information and discourse, creates regressions as humorous as chemtrails and the Flat Earth Society; and creates regressions as frightening as eugenics.

 

[gnomon]

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.

It's unfortunate.

But we have that right as a free electorate with freedom of religion and freedom of assembly and freedom of speech.

While I believe such rights have been positive as a whole it does mean we have the freedom to allow idiot assemblies.

And I'm afraid many who posted lost the concept of "willful" ignorance. Instead they are attempting futilely to describe general ignorance.

Rather sad.

So while I do believe that we do have the right to willful ignorance.....

I have found the need to argue general ignorance as an apologetic towards willful ignorance in this thread absolutely saddening of the level of education presented by so many.

Hell......even the Principia Discordia was offered up....I have nothing more to add upon that complete distraction.

But there is the issue of vaccines you brought up and fortunately more States have not allowed willful ignorance on that issue. They have disavowed the effects of a Playboy model who didn't have an autistic child to continue to sway their opinion on the incredible importance of vaccination. But....unfortunately...that fool had her right in accord to our jurisprudence.

But despite that.......the willful ignorance of herd immunization is lost among the general populace and their right to argue for their political position remains an absolute right as regarded by the Constitution of the United States.

I'll also point to Mystic's post above about our educational standards which give rise to a sense of identity in being willfully ignorant. I would add that being such often has a religious or cultural background as well.

But just to say......unfortunately.....yes....all of us have the right to be willfully ignorant in the United States.

It's sad.

I would also add that so much willful ignorance is tied to cultural upbringing. That's another whole can of worms. And I refuse to remark any more on that tonight or the next week.

So there you go.

edit: But I really like Mystic's point above. She summed up in so many fewer words than I tried.

 

[Meander_Z]

And I'm afraid many who posted lost the concept of "willful" ignorance. Instead they are attempting futilely to describe general ignorance.

Rather sad.

So while I do believe that we do have the right to willful ignorance.....

I have found the need to argue general ignorance as an apologetic towards willful ignorance in this thread absolutely saddening of the level of education presented by so many.

I've done my best to separate out this idea of willful ignorance from general ignorance, but the more I think about this phrase the less clarity it seems to have. The phrase itself is striking me as more and more oxymoronic by the hour.

Willful implies intentional participation. It implies a willful choice.

Ignorance implies a lack of awareness, knowledge, understanding. It implies something that is not chosen, something that is not even visible to those who have it.

So the way I see it, this term can be applied to anyone. At least anyone who has access to information, anyone who refuses to use that access in order to assemble their thoughts in the proper way. It applies to everyone in America, everyone in the western world, everyone with access to the internet. So American's are all willfully ignorant, while villagers in Peru are generally ignorant right? But this definition of willful ignorance requires that there is a right way of seeing the world, and then a willful rejection of that right way. General ignorance as a contrast to this definition would be a lack of access to this right way of seeing.

So lets talk about "the right way". I've personally assumed rational materialism as "the right way" that seems to be under proposal... but rather than confirming or denying this assumption... there seems to be the further insistence that "the right way" is so obviously superior to other ways, that presumably all of the smart people in the world know what it is. They have banded together in honor of "the right way", a way that is so perfect it will admit no fault. And how can anyone argue with or criticize a way that is so obviously superior that there is no point to discussing what it is? Every Christian, every atheist, every pagan on this forum knows that if they put their knowledge on display someone will come along and attempt to knock it down. They can take solace in the thought that what their criticizers have pointed out is the real ignorance, and they are smart, smart, smart. But the invisible confederation of smart people is even smarter. Non-ignorance is what they can all agree on, and what they can all agree on is that non-ignorance is the right way, and that they've found it, and people who haven't found it are ignorant, whether willfully or generally so.

I am ignorant of this right way. I'm aware of a number of different ways of seeing the world, but so far I have always remained an outsider to the right way. I see flaws in all the ways. In fact the smartest, best ways I have found involve humor in large quantities, and most importantly humor directed at oneself and one's own cultural group. But according to those who follow "the right way" humor is "the wrong way", it's a useless way, a distracting way. And here I am laughing... at you... at me... and I choose to do so, willingly. Wait a minute... Does that make me?... Oh my... I think maybe, yes... Yes it does!

I am willfully ignorant. I am willfully ignorant in a way that is clearly distinctive from general ignorance. I've learned a thing or two about your right way, and I reject it. I've been laughing at it and poking fun at it for a number of years. Because like a certain child that made a certain observation about the apparel of a certain emperor, I've realized that your right way does not in fact exist, and I find that funny.

So feel free to direct your tirades against willful ignorance right here. I am far more willful than the average person that you might decide to call willfully ignorant, and you can tell my ignorance because you know things, big important things, obvious things, things that people ought to know, things that would save the world if other people would just stop laughing, and arguing, and believing stupid things, and just pay attention. I am the idiot who laughs, and argues, and believes stupid things. And what is more, I have the terrible audacity to claim that my willful ignorance makes me wiser than the invisible confederation of smart people... and by that I mean you. I'm laughing about my wisdom too, but not as hard as I am laughing at you. I will probably keep laughing even while you are all beating the crap out of me. But hey it's worth it. I have laughter while all you have is rage and self pity and big important ideas that you can all agree on, so long as you never say what they are out loud and break the spell.

Gone camping. See you next week.

 

[savagewind]

I've done my best to separate out this idea of willful ignorance from general ignorance, but the more I think about this phrase the less clarity it seems to have. The phrase itself is striking me as more and more oxymoronic by the hour.

Willful implies intentional participation. It implies a willful choice.

Ignorance implies a lack of awareness, knowledge, understanding. It implies something that is not chosen, something that is not even visible to those who have it.

So the way I see it, this term can be applied to anyone. At least anyone who has access to information, anyone who refuses to use that access in order to assemble their thoughts in the proper way. It applies to everyone in America, everyone in the western world, everyone with access to the internet. So American's are all willfully ignorant, while villagers in Peru are generally ignorant right? But this definition of willful ignorance requires that there is a right way of seeing the world, and then a willful rejection of that right way. General ignorance as a contrast to this definition would be a lack of access to this right way of seeing.

So lets talk about "the right way". I've personally assumed rational materialism as "the right way" that seems to be under proposal... but rather than confirming or denying this assumption... there seems to be the further insistence that "the right way" is so obviously superior to other ways, that presumably all of the smart people in the world know what it is. They have banded together in honor of "the right way", a way that is so perfect it will admit no fault. And how can anyone argue with or criticize a way that is so obviously superior that there is no point to discussing what it is? Every Christian, every atheist, every pagan on this forum knows that if they put their knowledge on display someone will come along and attempt to knock it down. They can take solace in the thought that what their criticizers have pointed out is the real ignorance, and they are smart, smart, smart. But the invisible confederation of smart people is even smarter. Non-ignorance is what they can all agree on, and what they can all agree on is that non-ignorance is the right way, and that they've found it, and people who haven't found it are ignorant, whether willfully or generally so.

I am ignorant of this right way. I'm aware of a number of different ways of seeing the world, but so far I have always remained an outsider to the right way. I see flaws in all the ways. In fact the smartest, best ways I have found involve humor in large quantities, and most importantly humor directed at oneself and one's own cultural group. But according to those who follow "the right way" humor is "the wrong way", it's a useless way, a distracting way. And here I am laughing... at you... at me... and I choose to do so, willingly. Wait a minute... Does that make me?... Oh my... I think maybe, yes... Yes it does!

I am willfully ignorant. I am willfully ignorant in a way that is clearly distinctive from general ignorance. I've learned a thing or two about your right way, and I reject it. I've been laughing at it and poking fun at it for a number of years. Because like a certain child that made a certain observation about the apparel of a certain emperor, I've realized that your right way does not in fact exist, and I find that funny.

So feel free to direct your tirades against willful ignorance right here. I am far more willful than the average person that you might decide to call willfully ignorant, and you can tell my ignorance because you know things, big important things, obvious things, things that people ought to know, things that would save the world if other people would just stop laughing, and arguing, and believing stupid things, and just pay attention. I am the idiot who laughs, and argues, and believes stupid things. And what is more, I have the terrible audacity to claim that my willful ignorance makes me wiser than the invisible confederation of smart people... and by that I mean you. I'm laughing about my wisdom too, but not as hard as I am laughing at you. I will probably keep laughing even while you are all beating the crap out of me. But hey it's worth it. I have laughter while all you have is rage and self pity and big important ideas that you can all agree on, so long as you never say what they are out loud and break the spell.

Gone camping. See you next week.

That is by far the best rant I ever read.

But.... I am of a different point of view. I thought the thread was about the promotion of ignorance. Surely you do not think that ignorance should be endorsed. Do you?

 

[gnomon]

I've done my best to separate out this idea of willful ignorance from general ignorance, but the more I think about this phrase the less clarity it seems to have. The phrase itself is striking me as more and more oxymoronic by the hour.

Willful implies intentional participation. It implies a willful choice.

Ignorance implies a lack of awareness, knowledge, understanding. It implies something that is not chosen, something that is not even visible to those who have it.

So the way I see it, this term can be applied to anyone. At least anyone who has access to information, anyone who refuses to use that access in order to assemble their thoughts in the proper way. It applies to everyone in America, everyone in the western world, everyone with access to the internet. So American's are all willfully ignorant, while villagers in Peru are generally ignorant right? But this definition of willful ignorance requires that there is a right way of seeing the world, and then a willful rejection of that right way. General ignorance as a contrast to this definition would be a lack of access to this right way of seeing.

So lets talk about "the right way". I've personally assumed rational materialism as "the right way" that seems to be under proposal... but rather than confirming or denying this assumption... there seems to be the further insistence that "the right way" is so obviously superior to other ways, that presumably all of the smart people in the world know what it is. They have banded together in honor of "the right way", a way that is so perfect it will admit no fault. And how can anyone argue with or criticize a way that is so obviously superior that there is no point to discussing what it is? Every Christian, every atheist, every pagan on this forum knows that if they put their knowledge on display someone will come along and attempt to knock it down. They can take solace in the thought that what their criticizers have pointed out is the real ignorance, and they are smart, smart, smart. But the invisible confederation of smart people is even smarter. Non-ignorance is what they can all agree on, and what they can all agree on is that non-ignorance is the right way, and that they've found it, and people who haven't found it are ignorant, whether willfully or generally so.

I am ignorant of this right way. I'm aware of a number of different ways of seeing the world, but so far I have always remained an outsider to the right way. I see flaws in all the ways. In fact the smartest, best ways I have found involve humor in large quantities, and most importantly humor directed at oneself and one's own cultural group. But according to those who follow "the right way" humor is "the wrong way", it's a useless way, a distracting way. And here I am laughing... at you... at me... and I choose to do so, willingly. Wait a minute... Does that make me?... Oh my... I think maybe, yes... Yes it does!

I am willfully ignorant. I am willfully ignorant in a way that is clearly distinctive from general ignorance. I've learned a thing or two about your right way, and I reject it. I've been laughing at it and poking fun at it for a number of years. Because like a certain child that made a certain observation about the apparel of a certain emperor, I've realized that your right way does not in fact exist, and I find that funny.

So feel free to direct your tirades against willful ignorance right here. I am far more willful than the average person that you might decide to call willfully ignorant, and you can tell my ignorance because you know things, big important things, obvious things, things that people ought to know, things that would save the world if other people would just stop laughing, and arguing, and believing stupid things, and just pay attention. I am the idiot who laughs, and argues, and believes stupid things. And what is more, I have the terrible audacity to claim that my willful ignorance makes me wiser than the invisible confederation of smart people... and by that I mean you. I'm laughing about my wisdom too, but not as hard as I am laughing at you. I will probably keep laughing even while you are all beating the crap out of me. But hey it's worth it. I have laughter while all you have is rage and self pity and big important ideas that you can all agree on, so long as you never say what they are out loud and break the spell.

Gone camping. See you next week.

General ignorance is a concept that one is not knowledgeable in which one has not been exposed to. And the term does apply to all of us because by nature we all will be generally ignorant.

Willful ignorance is a concept that one is willing oneself to ignore evidence contrary to that which they have learned, regardless of culture, and refuses to acknowledge that the evidence presented to them has any merit.

So yes......willful does imply intentional choice.

Thus the term......willful ignorance.

Have fun camping.....

There is my horrid tirade.

 

[psychoslice]

If you are ignorant, then how would you know any better ?.