Ignorance isn't intentional

[DBT]

To some degree learning is a duty. Ignorance being no excuse if we break a law, etc.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

He asked a question that at the very least suggests if not outright implies that learning is or can be a duty. Your response in no way quelled that assumption.

It's not an assumption. It can be a duty under conventional definitions of the word 'duty'. The important aspect of my response is not, however, duty, but rather the relationship between the responsibilities of experts to teach and the responsibilities of those who should be learning what they have to teach. I offer no definition of who should be learning (as a matter of duty or for any other reason). It's unimportant to my post.

I'm not criticizing you for wanting to discuss 'duty to learn'; I'm just clarifying I'm not heading in that direction myself.

 

[bilby]

I made a thread a while back called 'why we should do away with the word stupid'. This thread is in a similar vein with a slightly different angle, and I wonder what others think of the idea.

If we look at the definition of ignorant:

ignorant - lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact

We notice that ignorance isn't a 'positive' attribute, it's a 'negative' attribute. In other words, ignorance is the result of a lack of knowledge, and not willful attainment of something. So, for the most part, someone who's ignorant of some thing isn't that way intentionally, but because they, or others, haven't been able to remove the ignorance yet.

So when someone is ignorant of something it's not really their fault.

Removing ignorance, you say. Interesting articulation. It's not as if there is something for the removal. The lack of something isn't something. The basis of ignorance may (at times) be misinformation, and that is something, and it can be replaced. Some say that the cure for ignorance is education.

The lack of something, in an environment where that something is ubiquitous, most certainly is a thing in its own right.

The lack of an electron in a semi-conductor is best modelled as a positive charge, negative mass particle. Cold is a thing, despite being merely a lack of heat. It is perfectly OK to talk about removing ignorance, and to consider ignorance to be a thing, if knowledge of that particular field is the norm.

Removing ignorance and providing knowledge (or education) are the same basic concepts; but the former is most certainly appropriate to situations where the ignorant are a small minority.

 

[fromderinside]

Removing ignorance and providing knowledge (or education) are the same basic concepts; but the former is most certainly appropriate to situations where the ignorant are a small minority.

Was that intentional? Because, if it is, my head is spinning. Is being in the position or circumstance of saying saying "fuck you" a position of intent? I favor gravity and entropy as explanations for being ignorant and for becoming ignorant. As one can see if one leaves out "ignorant" one still has gravity and entropy as an objectless cause.

 

[ronburgundy]

We have the phrase "willful ignorance" because sometimes it is intentional. People actually put forth effort to avoid knowledge and information on topics where they have already formed faith based or emotion based beliefs. If you already believe X and have a motive to protect that belief, then new information can only be a threat to that belief, so you actively avoid or suppress such information. That is among the inherent harms of faith and religion to intellectual growth.

Such willful ignorance is "their fault" and they should be held morally accountable for any harm to others that such ignorance contributes to.

Also, actions based in ignorance (even when not willful ignorance) are still morally accountable, because we have a responsibility to make an honest effort to inform ourselves accurately about the potential harm of our actions to others. This includes an obligation to be aware of when we are ignorant about something so we can either inform ourselves, wait to act until we are informed, or defer the decision to someone more informed.

 

[skepticalbip]

We have the phrase "willful ignorance" because sometimes it is intentional. People actually put forth effort to avoid knowledge and information on topics where they have already formed faith based or emotion based beliefs. If you already believe X and have a motive to protect that belief, then new information can only be a threat to that belief, so you actively avoid or suppress such information. That is among the inherent harms of faith and religion to intellectual growth.

Such willful ignorance is "their fault" and they should be held morally accountable for any harm to others that such ignorance contributes to.

Also, actions based in ignorance (even when not willful ignorance) are still morally accountable, because we have a responsibility to make an honest effort to inform ourselves accurately about the potential harm of our actions to others. This includes an obligation to be aware of when we are ignorant about something so we can either inform ourselves, wait to act until we are informed, or defer the decision to someone more informed.

While I agree with the rest of your post, this highlighted section gets into an area that is awfully iffy. People making an "honest effort" to inform themselves can still be informed by and accept ignorant beliefs of the prevailing science and do a great deal of harm. A case, in point, is the belief of the not so distant past medical certainty that infirmities were caused by "bad humors" so prescribed bleeding the patient. Who knows what of our current certainty will be shown to be ignorance in the next hundred years?

 

[rousseau]

We have the phrase "willful ignorance" because sometimes it is intentional. People actually put forth effort to avoid knowledge and information on topics where they have already formed faith based or emotion based beliefs. If you already believe X and have a motive to protect that belief, then new information can only be a threat to that belief, so you actively avoid or suppress such information. That is among the inherent harms of faith and religion to intellectual growth.

I wouldn't call what you're calling 'willful ignorance' willful at all. I can only really speak for myself, but looking back on my late teens and early twenties, for lack of a better phrase: I wasn't a thinker. I hadn't learned to critically analyze every part of my life, and I didn't have the life experience to give me the mental tools to do so effectively. It wasn't that I was willfully avoiding critical analysis of things, it was because it hadn't dawned on me yet that this would be a good idea.

I would hazard a guess that this is the case for the majority of people for the duration of their lives.

Such willful ignorance is "their fault" and they should be held morally accountable for any harm to others that such ignorance contributes to.

Also, actions based in ignorance (even when not willful ignorance) are still morally accountable, because we have a responsibility to make an honest effort to inform ourselves accurately about the potential harm of our actions to others. This includes an obligation to be aware of when we are ignorant about something so we can either inform ourselves, wait to act until we are informed, or defer the decision to someone more informed.

What about someone who is not aware that it's their responsibility to inform themselves? What about someone who is aware that it's their responsibility to inform themselves, but is not aware that they're uninformed? These two cases account for just about everyone who is ignorant about anything. That's the rub: if people knew they were ignorant and had an ingrained mechanism to remove that ignorance, they would do it. People who are ignorant are that way because nothing in their being has moved them out of it yet.

The conclusion that I draw from this, is that the most likely way for a person to gain awareness is from other people and things giving them insight that they don't hold themselves.

 

[ronburgundy]

We have the phrase "willful ignorance" because sometimes it is intentional. People actually put forth effort to avoid knowledge and information on topics where they have already formed faith based or emotion based beliefs. If you already believe X and have a motive to protect that belief, then new information can only be a threat to that belief, so you actively avoid or suppress such information. That is among the inherent harms of faith and religion to intellectual growth.

Such willful ignorance is "their fault" and they should be held morally accountable for any harm to others that such ignorance contributes to.

Also, actions based in ignorance (even when not willful ignorance) are still morally accountable, because we have a responsibility to make an honest effort to inform ourselves accurately about the potential harm of our actions to others. This includes an obligation to be aware of when we are ignorant about something so we can either inform ourselves, wait to act until we are informed, or defer the decision to someone more informed.

While I agree with the rest of your post, this highlighted section gets into an area that is awfully iffy. People making an "honest effort" to inform themselves can still be informed by and accept ignorant beliefs of the prevailing science and do a great deal of harm. A case, in point, is the belief of the not so distant past medical certainty that infirmities were caused by "bad humors" so prescribed bleeding the patient. Who knows what of our current certainty will be shown to be ignorance in the next hundred years?

Right, well an honest effort to be informed doesn't mean always being correct. It means that you go with the most rationally plausible conclusion given the current state of available information. IOW, a doctor ignoring current science is unethical. A doctor applying current science but who unaware that 100 years from now the current science will be different is not being unethical.

 

[ronburgundy]

I wouldn't call what you're calling 'willful ignorance' willful at all. I can only really speak for myself, but looking back on my late teens and early twenties, for lack of a better phrase: I wasn't a thinker. I hadn't learned to critically analyze every part of my life, and I didn't have the life experience to give me the mental tools to do so effectively. It wasn't that I was willfully avoiding critical analysis of things, it was because it hadn't dawned on me yet that this would be a good idea.

I would hazard a guess that this is the case for the majority of people for the duration of their lives.

I'd argue that what you are describing is not what I described, and that what I described is very willful. The notion of faith as a virtue is a doctrine of willful ignorance and deliberate irrationality. It is an act of consciously disregarding relevant information in favor of emotional preferences and people do it all the time and religion preaches that doing so is a moral requirement.

Such willful ignorance is "their fault" and they should be held morally accountable for any harm to others that such ignorance contributes to.

Also, actions based in ignorance (even when not willful ignorance) are still morally accountable, because we have a responsibility to make an honest effort to inform ourselves accurately about the potential harm of our actions to others. This includes an obligation to be aware of when we are ignorant about something so we can either inform ourselves, wait to act until we are informed, or defer the decision to someone more informed.

What about someone who is not aware that it's their responsibility to inform themselves?

I'd would argue that they are equal to someone "not aware" that its their responsibility not to kill people. Actions impact others. All non-mentally impaired adults are aware of this. Thus, if you care about harming others, then you inherently care about whether your actions are based on accurate information. IOW, only someone without regard and empathy for others would not be aware that they should inform themselves.

What about someone who is aware that it's their responsibility to inform themselves, but is not aware that they're uninformed?
These two cases account for just about everyone who is ignorant about anything.

Nonsense. Most people are well aware that they are uninformed. In fact, they rarely have any basis to think they are informed and it is obviously to all that being uninformed is the default. People willfully delude themselves (lie) about being informed for selfish reasons of either not wanting to bother to get informed or because they gain some advantage by their current actions and want to plead ignorance after the fact.

 

[rousseau]

I believe that you're over-estimating how aware the average person is of themselves and their surroundings. And it's not a matter of not being conscious, it's a matter of people's brains literally holding a finite amount of information about themselves and the world. If you don't have the mental concepts in place that allow you remove a veil of ignorance, you don't have them.

I really doubt that there are many people saying "yea I should seriously look into evolution, but I won't because I'm a Christian". It's more like most Christians are unconsciously averse to doing so. They aren't rationalizing their aversion, it's just a thing that's there

 

[skepticalbip]

While I agree with the rest of your post, this highlighted section gets into an area that is awfully iffy. People making an "honest effort" to inform themselves can still be informed by and accept ignorant beliefs of the prevailing science and do a great deal of harm. A case, in point, is the belief of the not so distant past medical certainty that infirmities were caused by "bad humors" so prescribed bleeding the patient. Who knows what of our current certainty will be shown to be ignorance in the next hundred years?

Right, well an honest effort to be informed doesn't mean always being correct. It means that you go with the most rationally plausible conclusion given the current state of available information. IOW, a doctor ignoring current science is unethical. A doctor applying current science but who unaware that 100 years from now the current science will be different is not being unethical.

That is still an awfully iffy situation. It would mean that those who opposed the then state of available information and stopped bleeding patients because they were considering the germ theory would be unethical. Their believing, against established medicine, that the idea of humors was absurd would be considered by established science of the day as ignorance and woo that was endangering the life of the patient. After all, all true science knew that it was "bad humors" that caused maladies.

 

[ronburgundy]

Right, well an honest effort to be informed doesn't mean always being correct. It means that you go with the most rationally plausible conclusion given the current state of available information. IOW, a doctor ignoring current science is unethical. A doctor applying current science but who unaware that 100 years from now the current science will be different is not being unethical.

That is still an awfully iffy situation. It would mean that those who opposed the then state of available information and stopped bleeding patients because they were considering the germ theory would be unethical. Their believing, against established medicine, that the idea of humors was absurd would be considered by established science of the day as ignorance and woo that was endangering the life of the patient. After all, all true science knew that it was "bad humors" that caused maladies.

No it wouldn't. The early pioneers of germ theory had more valid evidence than did the "bad humor" theory ever did. Germ theory arose out of the scientific evidence that suggested it and was against the "bad humor" theory. "Medical practice" is not "science". It can or cannot be based in science, which means evidence from validated methods of systematic manipulation, measurement, and statistical analysis. Much of it today still is not and and the further you go back in time, the less and less it was based in science.