The bliss of ignorance

[Grahame]

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

 

Doesn't there come a point when you have to put theory into practise, and isn't it then when you really start learning? Otherwise all your learning is just "airy fairy superstitious nonsense."

[Wildcat]

I have no idea why you would argue that he doesn't use Fox for political purposes - he has stated it himself several times.

 

That doesn't surprise me.

 

I chose however to restrict my explanation of my post to what could reasonably be concluded from the evidence presented. Going any further would be likely to confuse Graham...

[Harleyman]

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

 

How much Fox News do you watch and can you please give me at least one specific news item that has stigmatized monority groups that it knows have no foundation.

 

Before you jump to conclusions let me make it clear that I am not defending Fox News. I watch Keith Olbermann as much as I watch Bill O'Reilly. They are at opposite ends of the political spectrum and both have valid and invalid points in their political views and as an independent thinker much can be learned from both points of view.

[Wildcat]

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."

 

I sort of see what you are saying, I hasn't to add that is not a criticism you are perfectly eloquent and clear in what you are saying and I too sometimes see response to what I have put and ask myself how they have read that in to what I have said. More often than not it is the other poster being deliberately obtuse, but there are occassions when you look back and can see there are double meanings, or hinted sarcasm that hasn't properly come across.

 

I don't however agree with your pessimism. I think the written word and debates on forums like this allow for much more detailed discussion and analysis and opportunities to learn than debating groups... which do still exist. I appreciate there are limitations and on forums that is particularly evident with those that aren't interested in debate at all just in unreasoning propoganda or trolling. The availability of information does now require a good rubbish filter, and understanding of how to assess the credibility of a source of information, but this has always been the case. I can buy plenty of misleading books now just as I could in the past.

 

For some reason the other day I came across this article and this passage caught my attention:

 

The most famous case in the early study of cognitive dissonance was described by Leon Festinger and others in the book When Prophecy Fails.[3] The authors infiltrated a group that was expecting the imminent end of the world on a certain date. When that prediction failed, the movement did not disintegrate, but grew instead. By sharing cult beliefs with others, they gained acceptance and thus reduced their own dissonance (see further discussion below).

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance#Examples

 

When I get time I will look at the section on cognitive dissonance in more detail. But I think what the example does illustrate is how psychologically some people can be predisposed to reject reason in preference to what they want to believe.

[Wildcat]

How much Fox News do you watch and can you please give me at least one specific news item that has stigmatized monority groups that it knows have no foundation.

 

Before you jump to conclusions let me make it clear that I am not defending Fox News. I watch Keith Olbermann as much as I watch Bill O'Reilly. They are at opposite ends of the political spectrum and both have valid and invalid points in their political views and as an independent thinker much can be learned from both points of view.

 

See the post prior to the one you are responding to where they were raising fears about extremist islam based on the Manhattan mosque receiving funding from a Saudi Arabian Prince... The problem being they neglected to mention that the same Saudi Arabian Prince they are using to raise fears about encroaching and dangerous Islamification of New York also owns the second largest share of Fox itself.

 

This post:

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=6619570&postcount=221

[Grahame]

See the post prior to the one you are responding to where they were raising fears about extremist islam based on the Manhattan mosque receiving funding from a Saudi Arabian Prince... The problem being they neglected to mention that the same Saudi Arabian Prince they are using to raise fears about encroaching and dangerous Islamification of New York also owns the second largest share of Fox itself.

This post:

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=6619570&postcount=221

 

And Fox is opposed to Islam.

 

Either that represents balance and Fox's independent stand, or I am misunderstanding?

[Harleyman]

See the post prior to the one you are responding to where they were raising fears about extremist islam based on the Manhattan mosque receiving funding from a Saudi Arabian Prince... The problem being they neglected to mention that the same Saudi Arabian Prince they are using to raise fears about encroaching and dangerous Islamification of New York also owns the second largest share of Fox itself.

 

This post:

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=6619570&postcount=221

 

In this case it may not be justified but I think that a lot of the fear of Islamic extremism comes from what is seen when looking at Europe where there are groups of extremists living in Muslim communities and are under surveillance by police 24/7. This could raise concerns that the same could happen here if it hasn't already done so.

 

America has a history of extremist groups carrying out acts of violence and the Times Square incident of a few months ago and the Fort Hood shootings only serve to reinforce this sense of uneasiness.

 

There is some justification for a feeling of "paranoia" for want of a better word

[quisquose]

For some reason the other day I came across this article and this passage caught my attention:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance#Examples

 

When I get time I will look at the section on cognitive dissonance in more detail. But I think what the example does illustrate is how psychologically some people can be predisposed to reject reason in preference to what they want to believe.

I used to trade shares*, and some of the best examples of this can be found on trading forums like ADVFN. People will hold shares and can only see positives in whatever announcements are made, even despite the obvious and a falling share price. The more money invested, the more supposed potential returns, the longer the position held, the more delusional the investor becomes. It was so glaringly obvious, that I even began to recognise this delusion in myself. Investors can exhibit behaviour almost Gollum/Sméagol like.

 

Investors will heard together and reinforce their views that XYZ have a widget that will solve the energy crisis, or whatever, and make them all rich. Any dissenting comments will be shot down. Forums that have voting can become quite comical, somebody that writes a long well argued comment that is negative about a company's prospects will have -33 next to it, and somebody that writes "this share is so undervalued" will have +296 next to the comment. As if by magic, when somebody sells their holding their opinions can turn 180 deg in an instant.

 

It's all about investment, whatever the form of the investment. And we are all susceptible. Investing in a company might be money, but religion, politics, conspiracy theories, whatever, can take an enormous amount of emotional investment and time.

 

 

* Which probably makes me in your opinion.

[Grahame]

I used to trade shares*, and some of the best examples of this can be found on trading forums like ADVFN. People will hold shares and can only see positives in whatever announcements are made, even despite the obvious and a falling share price. The more money invested, the more supposed potential returns, the longer the position held, the more delusional the investor becomes. It was so glaringly obvious, that I even began to recognise this delusion in myself. Investors can exhibit behaviour almost Gollum/Sméagol like.

 

Investors will heard together and reinforce their views that XYZ have a widget that will solve the energy crisis, or whatever, and make them all rich. Any dissenting comments will be shot down. Forums that have voting can become quite comical, somebody that writes a long well argued comment that is negative about a company's prospects will have -33 next to it, and somebody that writes "this share is so undervalued" will have +296 next to the comment. As if by magic, when somebody sells their holding their opinions can turn 180 deg in an instant.

 

It's all about investment, whatever the form of the investment. And we are all susceptible. Investing in a company might be money, but religion, politics, conspiracy theories, whatever, can take an enormous amount of emotional investment and time.

 

 

* Which probably makes me in your opinion.

 

Which is why we have to make rational, objective, and informed judgements on all subjects including religion. This is why I am a Christian.

[Wildcat]

I used to trade shares*,

 

.......

 

* Which probably makes me in your opinion.

 

An interesting post, which I don't unfortunately have time to respond to properly now.

 

But I do have time to reassure you I don't think you are evil, indeed even when we have differing views and in fundamental disagreement it is always a pleasure to debate with you.