The bliss of ignorance

[Grahame]

Internet discussions are rarely about matters of science where evidence decides, or matters with a binary yes/no answer that can be proved. Nearly every discussion is about matters of opinion. Hardly surprising that they nearly always boil down to religion or politics, where evidence is often actively ignored.

 

The Prof Nutt saga from last year really angered me for this reason.

 

I actually think that increasing numbers of TV channels and the Internet can be a detriment to critical thinking because people simply seek out information that reinforces their opinions. Hence Fox News in the US is the "most trusted news network" despite being poisonous nonsense that pushes an agenda.

 

Face to face debate, preferably with a pint, in a pub, is always the best form of debate. I have had my mind changed far more frequently from intelligent humorous debate in these situations.

 

Despite attending two faith schools, I recall that even our Chaplain encouraged dissenting debate. The attempt to establish the truth was more important than the truth itself, even if it was possible. By contrast it saddened me to see those kids on the Dawkins programme last week, sat alongside their "science" teacher. To hear them unanimously state their disbelief in evolution, and even descend into Internet style apologetics to defend their dogmas, at such a young age. Very sad.

 

It goes without saying that is the view of people who disagree with Fox News, but who are they to say they are right.

[Wildcat]

Internet discussions are rarely about matters of science where evidence decides, or matters with a binary yes/no answer that can be proved. Nearly every discussion is about matters of opinion. Hardly surprising that they nearly always boil down to religion or politics, where evidence is often actively ignored.

 

The Prof Nutt saga from last year really angered me for this reason.

 

I actually think that increasing numbers of TV channels and the Internet can be a detriment to critical thinking because people simply seek out information that reinforces their opinions. Hence Fox News in the US is the "most trusted news network" despite being poisonous nonsense that pushes an agenda.

 

Face to face debate, preferably with a pint, in a pub, is always the best form of debate. I have had my mind changed far more frequently from intelligent humorous debate in these situations.

 

Despite attending two faith schools, I recall that even our Chaplain encouraged dissenting debate. The attempt to establish the truth was more important than the truth itself, even if it was possible. By contrast it saddened me to see those kids on the Dawkins programme last week, sat alongside their "science" teacher. To hear them unanimously state their disbelief in evolution, and even descend into Internet style apologetics to defend their dogmas, at such a young age. Very sad.

 

In my opinion face to face debates are inferior to reading and contrasting opinions in writing. It is far too easy for skilled oratory and rhetoric to win over substance.

[Wildcat]

It goes without saying that is the view of people who disagree with Fox News, but who are they to say they are right.

 

It is obvious to anyone.

 

This site documents their daily misrepresentations.

 

http://www.newshounds.us/

 

A current example....

 

Fox stirring up anti-muslim feeling against the Manhattan mosque because of its backing by a Saudi prince...

 

http://www.newshounds.us/2010/08/24/will_laura_ingraham_speak_out_against_fox_news_muslim_extremist_shareholder.php

 

http://www.newshounds.us/2010/08/24/will_brian_kilmeade_continue_to_accept_funds_from_radical_madrassa_funder.php

 

http://www.newshounds.us/2010/08/20/when_will_hannity_return_his_salary_to_saudi_arabian_news_corp_shareholder.php

 

What they don't tell you is that the same Saudi Prince is the second largest shareholder in the Murdoch empire and of Fox.

 

[Grahame]

It is obvious to anyone.

 

This site documents their daily misrepresentations.

 

http://www.newshounds.us/

 

A current example....

 

Fox stirring up anti-muslim feeling against the Manhattan mosque because of its backing by a Saudi prince...

 

http://www.newshounds.us/2010/08/24/will_laura_ingraham_speak_out_against_fox_news_muslim_extremist_shareholder.php

 

http://www.newshounds.us/2010/08/24/will_brian_kilmeade_continue_to_accept_funds_from_radical_madrassa_funder.php

 

http://www.newshounds.us/2010/08/20/when_will_hannity_return_his_salary_to_saudi_arabian_news_corp_shareholder.php

 

What they don't tell you is that the same Saudi Prince is the second largest shareholder in the Murdoch empire and of Fox.

 

 

My first reaction is that they are doing the same as all investigative journalists and are operating under the law of "Publish and be damned" regardless of who their pay master is and that takes courage.

 

Are you saying Murdoch is using Fox News for his own ends?

 

[Wildcat]

My first reaction is that they are doing the same as all investigative journalists and are operating under the law of "Publish and be damned" regardless of who their pay master is and that takes courage.

 

Are you saying Murdoch is using Fox News for his own ends?

 

 

No I am saying Fox News will allow its journalists to run nasty stories that stigmatise minority groups that it knows have no foundation.

[Lotusflower]

One should never underestimate how much "investment" people put into building their identity through their beliefs.

 

Never a truer word spoken.

[quisquose]

In my opinion face to face debates are inferior to reading and contrasting opinions in writing. It is far too easy for skilled oratory and rhetoric to win over substance.

I agree with respect to formal debate, but just as a skilled orator can twist the debate his way in such debates, so can a skilled writer in comments.

 

I am often frustrated by my own abilities in communicating my thoughts in writing, to the point that nearly every response to my posts on SF has me shrugging my shoulders thinking "that's not what I meant, but I guess that's what I wrote".

 

What I was promoting was informal debate, or discussion. It's much more effective when one is able to pause the discussion with, "I don't know what you mean", or "let me just address that point". Somebody (like me) who is unable to eloquently get his point across has a much better chance in open debate. Ironically perhaps, some of the best discussions I've been involved in, where I actually learnt to enjoy learning and changed my mind on a number of issues, was the RE lessons with the Chaplain. I recall two geeks, who were usually silent, once explaining to all of us, including the Chaplain, what the theories of relativity and big bang actually were.

 

It saddens me that such avenues to real discussion are being removed, and being replaced by access to information that simply reinforces opinions. This can only lead to a much more polarised society like we have seen develop in the US in recent years.

 

I recall the scene in Donnie Darko where Prof. Kenneth Monnitoff (Noah Wyle) says to Donnie, when discussing the philosophy of time travel, "I'm not going to be able to continue this conversation ... I could lose my job."

[danot]

I agree with respect to formal debate, but just as a skilled orator can twist the debate his way in such debates, so can a skilled writer in comments.

 

I am often frustrated by my own abilities in communicating my thoughts in writing, to the point that nearly every response to my posts on SF has me shrugging my shoulders thinking "that's not what I meant, but I guess that's what I wrote".

 

What I was promoting was informal debate, or discussion. It's much more effective when one is able to pause the discussion with, "I don't know what you mean", or "let me just address that point". Somebody (like me) who is unable to eloquently get his point across has a much better chance in open debate. Ironically perhaps, some of the best discussions I've been involved in, where I actually learnt to enjoy learning and changed my mind on a number of issues, was the RE lessons with the Chaplain. I recall two geeks, who were usually silent, once explaining to all of us, including the Chaplain, what the theories of relativity and big bang actually were.

 

It saddens me that such avenues to real discussion are being removed, and being replaced by access to information that simply reinforces opinions. This can only lead to a much more polarised society like we have seen develop in the US in recent years.

 

I recall the scene in Donnie Darko where Prof. Kenneth Monnitoff (Noah Wyle) says to Donnie, when discussing the philosophy of time travel, "I'm not going to be able to continue this conversation ... I could lose my job."

You don't have a problem getting your point across in my opinion quisquose, you make your point most eloquently.

 

The point you've just made is the point I've been trying to make for weeks, with little success. Well said!!.

[ElimGarak]

I agree with respect to formal debate, but just as a skilled orator can twist the debate his way in such debates, so can a skilled writer in comments.

 

I am often frustrated by my own abilities in communicating my thoughts in writing, to the point that nearly every response to my posts on SF has me shrugging my shoulders thinking "that's not what I meant, but I guess that's what I wrote".

 

What I was promoting was informal debate, or discussion. It's much more effective when one is able to pause the discussion with, "I don't know what you mean", or "let me just address that point". Somebody (like me) who is unable to eloquently get his point across has a much better chance in open debate. Ironically perhaps, some of the best discussions I've been involved in, where I actually learnt to enjoy learning and changed my mind on a number of issues, was the RE lessons with the Chaplain. I recall two geeks, who were usually silent, once explaining to all of us, including the Chaplain, what the theories of relativity and big bang actually were.

 

It saddens me that such avenues to real discussion are being removed, and being replaced by access to information that simply reinforces opinions. This can only lead to a much more polarised society like we have seen develop in the US in recent years.

 

I recall the scene in Donnie Darko where Prof. Kenneth Monnitoff (Noah Wyle) says to Donnie, when discussing the philosophy of time travel, "I'm not going to be able to continue this conversation ... I could lose my job."

 

On a (slightly) similar note, this made me think back to an episode of Doctor Who (I know, not exactly the best source I could have used!) where the contestants of gameshows are being killed off for fun...

 

Female Programmer: If you're not holding us hostage, then open the door and let us out. The staff are terrified!

The Doctor: That's the same staff who execute hundreds of contestants every day?

Female Programmer: That's not our fault. We're just doing our jobs.

The Doctor: And with that sentence, you just lost the right to even talk to me.

 

Perfect (if not a little idealistic) way to deal with ignorance imo

[ElimGarak]

Methinks thou doth presume too much.

 

I'm a Swami Grahame. I try to live in the moment and be true to the best I know. An essential part of this is developing the ability to look for the best in everyone. Sometimes it's harder than at other times.

I would say ignorance is never bliss. Knowledge is power.

 

To quote some song lyrics...

 

"Promote the beauty of learning, and how it comes hand in hand with earning"

 

I don't think it means just earning in a financial sense, but earning the respect, love and experience needed to grow

 

To Live is to Learn...Stop Learning and you Stop Living