The bliss of ignorance

[Alien]

Yes it is, it's vital if you're debating an issue.

 

Presenting evidence to corroborate statements that someone is criticising is fine. But in my opinion, "the evidence" is just the source of information being used in argument. I certainly don't see it as proof that someone's argument is true... why would anyone have reason to believe that?.

 

So...by what criteria do you use personally to asses that something is "true"?

[boyfriday]

Yes it is, it's vital if you're debating an issue.

 

Presenting evidence to corroborate statements that someone is criticising is fine. But in my opinion, "the evidence" is just the source of information being used in argument. I certainly don't see it as proof that someone's argument is true... why would anyone have reason to believe that?.

 

You're obsessing about evidence being presented being 'true'. That isn't necessarily important, it's the ability to assimilate the available 'evidence' and construct an argument around it that stimulates the discussion.

 

Even the sensational statements made on blog sites for example that people link to can enlighten the debate and create an environment that encourages learning and the search for counter evidence. The posters who stick their fingers in their ears (metaphorically) kill the debate stone dead.

[danot]

Again, I'm not suggesting anyone should accept contradictory evidence, it's a matter for them and only part of the game that we play here.

 

What I don't understand are those who post without providing any evidence to corroborate their position, and when challenged then refuse to consider the contrary evidence..content in their ignorance. Invariably the outcome is an agreement to disagree, whether they consider the contradictory evidence or not.

I suppose it depends on the individual and credence on the written word.

 

We're not here to swear oath on wikipedia are we?

[vResistance]

If you were sat around with your mates having a chat and someone made a statement,would it be proper to demand evidence to back up that statement ?

This isn't a Law Court.

Fair enough if someone has evidence to dispute the statement and wish to produce it,rather than the old "wibble wibble":loopy::loopy: treatment.its such a cop out.

[Grahame]

Following on from another recent thread highlighting our gullible nature and eagerness to believe conspiracy theories on the internet, I thought at least it shows someone has taken the time to read the media out there.

 

Conversely there exists an ignorance that is formed through a lack of exploration, the kind of mindset that keeps people emotionally poor.. a blissful state of certainty based on indolence.

 

Many times here points are argued constructively, and then someone will pitch in with statements like 'why do you post so many links' or 'I can't be bothered to read them' the most cutting retort of the cerebrally challenged is to announce that they've placed you on ignore, as if the irritant that gives them a rash will be cured if they stop looking at it.

 

There are many contentious issues that are discussed here-immigration, politics, Islam, crime etc, but before they descend into bitchiness, lies are invariably presented as fact, and when evidence to the contrary is presented it is assiduously ignored.

 

Someone said the other day that it's impossible to change peoples minds, but surely that isn't a virtue? Shouldn't we be open minded enough to accept a conflicting argument or at least consider the reasoning behind it?

 

None of this is rocket science or original thinking on my part, but what I'd like to know is are people able (happy) to change long held views when confronted with the evidence that contradicts them, or are they content in their beliefs on the basis that they never have to open a book or seek experiences that will challenge their thinking?

 

Right, back to finish my tepid lamb sag

 

Those are the sorts of things a professor who has studied the subject over many years and has had similar conversations many times in the past, and has changed his mind many times, says to the student who still has a lot to learn.

[flamingjimmy]

If you were sat around with your mates having a chat and someone made a statement,would it be proper to demand evidence to back up that statement ?

 

Maybe, it depends on how outlandish the statement was.

 

If they said something like 'I've just come back from the pub' I'd probably take their word for it.

 

If they told me 'there is a worldwide conspiracy to hide the true origins of Mars Bars, they are in fact the droppings of mars rabbits which were discovered by Nasa in the 70s' then I would probably ask for proof, yes.

[danot]

So...by what criteria do you use personally to asses that something is "true"?

I would look at the supporting and conflicting evidence to assess whether something was true. Although that wouldn't apply if I claimed to know it was true, as I would have witnessed it.

[Wildcat]

I suppose it depends on the individual and credence on the written word.

 

We're not here to swear oath on wikipedia are we?

 

It can be very complex ascertaining the strength of a source. Newspaper articles can be total fabrications, but more normally there is a grain of truth to them.... all too often you get the Tabloid misleading headline followed by a rant on a theme for three quarters of the page and then in the final paragraph you get a perfectly reasonable explanation from whoever is the supposed perpetrator.

 

Misleading journalism isn't restricted to tabloids either.... I think everyone expects a certain difference of interpretation from say the Telegraph compared with the Guardian, and it is even more complex than that when you consider the journalists themselves and their histories. But all these factors are important in checking our sources of information to get to the best evidence on which to form our opinions.

 

I would also add that blogs are not necessarily worse sources than newspapers. They can be, better and in other cases can be worse. One good way to spot a bad blog for example is what else it runs arguments on.... if it has stuff about UFOs, Bilderberg, JFK, moon landings etc. then you are probably safe to consider the article being referenced with some suspicion. But other blogs like tabloid watch, 5 Chinese Crackers, Deltoid, Bad Science etc all have good reputations and whilst that doesn't mean you should take what they say as gospel truth you can treat it with a degree of confidence from experience as well as from checking the references it uses.

 

Just as a quick example that falls out of the global warming debate, from experience over the course of the thread the Telegraph was often cited as source for scepticism of global warming.... James Delingpole in particular. Investigating his articles as you do when trying to get to the bottom of the value of their articles I found numerous flaws..(Example) So when this article appeared on Liberal Conspiracy about the Telegraph censoring an article by Tom Chivers that criticised Delingpole, the article along with checking the references looks convincing and fits with my understanding built up from previous experience of the Journalists.

 

http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/06/16/is-the-telegraph-censoring-criticism-of-climate-change-deniers/

 

As the article points out Delingpole was allowed to get away with referencing Chivers as “some other libtard journalist”, whilst defending the totally discredited Monckton.

 

Whatever has now gone on behind the scenes it looks like Chivers has now won the argument with the Telegraph editorial team because a month and a bit later he was able to get in print that James Delingpole and Christopher Brooker are conspiracy theorists.

 

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tomchivers/100045477/the-met-offices-climate-change-report-between-denial-and-alarm-lies-reality/

 

The example shows how stories can't be taken at face value but from investigating the backgrounds one can form evidence based opinions that not only contribute to debates but that lead to better informed opinions.

[Grahame]

Anyway I always take the saying "Ignorance is bliss" to mean it is best not to know there are impurities in the food you eat. It is best not to know someone you love is about to do something dangerous, and not knowing you have cancer might be said to be blissful ignorance.

 

That is not to say we should remain uneducated otherwise we will be living in cloud cuckoo land and looking at the world through rose tinted spectacles because we don't know the truth and neither do we know the awful things that people do to each other.

 

So knowing the truth about the starving millions is upsetting and not knowing about them is bliss. Hence "Ignorance is bliss."

[danot]

You're obsessing about evidence being presented being 'true'. That isn't necessarily important, it's the ability to assimilate the available 'evidence' and construct an argument around it that stimulates the discussion.

 

Even the sensational statements made on blog sites for example that people link to can enlighten the debate and create an environment that encourages learning and the search for counter evidence. The posters who stick their fingers in their ears (metaphorically) kill the debate stone dead.

But most if not all debates turn out the same BF, with certain posters telling other posters they are talking nonsense, or they are wrong, or what they are saying is not true. That's just as frustrating as someone sticking their fingers in their ears in my opinion.