What is wilful ignorance?

[rousseau]

I keep hearing claims about wilful ignorance, but I still don't understand what it is or how it could be possible, epistemologically. Take an example:

- Person A believes people were created by God because they don't understand evolution and science

If this person is intentionally failing to learn evolution and science so they can continue their belief, wouldn't that imply they don't fully believe their own claim? If they know understanding science will undermine their claim, then they already believe in science. In which case the example wouldn't be wilful ignorance, it would be disingenuousness.

Or what am I missing?

 

[ruby sparks]

I keep hearing claims about wilful ignorance, but I still don't understand what it is or how it could be possible...

I've heard some say that it goes by the name Untermensche.

 

[bilby]

I keep hearing claims about wilful ignorance, but I still don't understand what it is or how it could be possible, epistemologically. Take an example:

- Person A believes people were created by God because they don't understand evolution and science

If this person is intentionally failing to learn evolution and science so they can continue their belief, wouldn't that imply they don't fully believe their own claim? If they know understanding science will undermine their claim, then they already believe in science. In which case the example wouldn't be wilful ignorance, it would be disingenuousness.

Or what am I missing?

Arrogance.

People who believe that their knowledge in a given subject is complete will choose not to learn because they think that any information on the subject must either be already known to them, or must be wrong.

Observations that challenge their preconceptions are dismissed as erroneous, mistaken, or irrelevant.

 

[untermensche]

I keep hearing claims about wilful ignorance, but I still don't understand what it is or how it could be possible...

I've heard some say that it goes by the name Untermensche.

Yes.

Ignorance like a lack of belief in magic.

Magic like real completed infinities.

And brains that behave exactly like minds.

 

[Lion IRC]

You'd be surprised what the mind can wilfully do.
https://www.health.harvard.edu/mind-and-mood/6-ways-to-use-your-mind-to-control-pain

 

[GenesisNemesis]

You'd be surprised what the mind can wilfully do.
https://www.health.harvard.edu/mind-and-mood/6-ways-to-use-your-mind-to-control-pain

Hey, it looks like you can do all of that without belief in God! Who woulda thought!

 

[OLDMAN]

I keep hearing claims about wilful ignorance, but I still don't understand what it is or how it could be possible, epistemologically. Take an example:

- Person A believes people were created by God because they don't understand evolution and science

If this person is intentionally failing to learn evolution and science so they can continue their belief, wouldn't that imply they don't fully believe their own claim? If they know understanding science will undermine their claim, then they already believe in science. In which case the example wouldn't be wilful ignorance, it would be disingenuousness.

Or what am I missing?

Arrogance.

People who believe that their knowledge in a given subject is complete will choose not to learn because they think that any information on the subject must either be already known to them, or must be wrong.

Observations that challenge their preconceptions are dismissed as erroneous, mistaken, or irrelevant.

It is ego that drives the religious value system. They don't need to side with their fellow humans to solve any world problems, because their God(s) are going to take care of it all. And THEY have been called, chosen, or made clever enough to see exactly what God wants and needs from them. Without God they are not nearly as important, and have to get off their asses and do some heavier lifting.

But how do we change their values to one that would actually require them to help their fellow man? I think we start with the idea that newborn babies are innocent, and go from there. We have to feel good about being human and taught that the human condition will contain poor, harmful and greedy decisions from time to time. But all people (except those without empathy) can do better.

 

[rousseau]

People who believe that their knowledge in a given subject is complete will choose not to learn because they think that any information on the subject must either be already known to them, or must be wrong.

If someone believes their knowledge in a given subject is complete, but is incorrect, isn't that just ignorance? And if they lack the wherewithal to experience doubt about their convictions, wouldn't that also just be another example of ignorance?

The term 'wilful' is throwing me off. Google tells me the term has historically applied to law, but outside of that domain I still don't get how the word wilful plays into it.

 

[bilby]

People who believe that their knowledge in a given subject is complete will choose not to learn because they think that any information on the subject must either be already known to them, or must be wrong.

If someone believes their knowledge in a given subject is complete, but is incorrect, isn't that just ignorance? And if they lack the wherewithal to experience doubt about their convictions, wouldn't that also just be another example of ignorance?

The term 'wilful' is throwing me off. Google tells me the term has historically applied to law, but outside of that domain I still don't get how the word wilful plays into it.

Observations that challenge their preconceptions are dismissed as erroneous, mistaken, or irrelevant. That's a wilful process. If you think the Earth is flat, because you have never seen evidence to the contrary, you are ignorant. If I then show you the overwhelming evidence that the world is in fact approximately spherical, and having seen that evidence, you still believe the world is flat, because you refused to consider the evidence that was served to you on a plate (or a sphere ), then that's wilful ignorance - unless you are physiologically incapable of processing the information, in which case it's stupidity.

 

[rousseau]

People who believe that their knowledge in a given subject is complete will choose not to learn because they think that any information on the subject must either be already known to them, or must be wrong.

If someone believes their knowledge in a given subject is complete, but is incorrect, isn't that just ignorance? And if they lack the wherewithal to experience doubt about their convictions, wouldn't that also just be another example of ignorance?

The term 'wilful' is throwing me off. Google tells me the term has historically applied to law, but outside of that domain I still don't get how the word wilful plays into it.

Observations that challenge their preconceptions are dismissed as erroneous, mistaken, or irrelevant. That's a wilful process. If you think the Earth is flat, because you have never seen evidence to the contrary, you are ignorant. If I then show you the overwhelming evidence that the world is in fact approximately spherical, and having seen that evidence, you still believe the world is flat, because you refused to consider the evidence that was served to you on a plate (or a sphere ), then that's wilful ignorance - unless you are physiologically incapable of processing the information, in which case it's stupidity.

Yea that's partly what I'm getting at. I don't see how 'refusing to consider the evidence that was served to you on a plate' and 'physiologically incapable of processing the information' are in any way different things.

I don't see how logically these three things can be true at the same time
- I am a person who carefully considers evidence
- I choose not to carefully consider evidence that contradicts my beliefs
- I sincerely hold the belief that is being contradicted by evidence

Unless the person has carefully considered the evidence and doesn't find it convincing.

 

[untermensche]

It is extremely easy to convince yourself that any knowledge is suspect.

If there is something to be gained by doing it.

Global warming for example.

Many have convinced themselves they know what is happening better than the people carefully studying it.

Especially if they are in the oil business.

 

[bilby]

Observations that challenge their preconceptions are dismissed as erroneous, mistaken, or irrelevant. That's a wilful process. If you think the Earth is flat, because you have never seen evidence to the contrary, you are ignorant. If I then show you the overwhelming evidence that the world is in fact approximately spherical, and having seen that evidence, you still believe the world is flat, because you refused to consider the evidence that was served to you on a plate (or a sphere ), then that's wilful ignorance - unless you are physiologically incapable of processing the information, in which case it's stupidity.

Yea that's partly what I'm getting at. I don't see how 'refusing to consider the evidence that was served to you on a plate' and 'physiologically incapable of processing the information' are in any way different things.

The former is psychological; The latter physiological.

You can determine the difference easily enough - a stupid person cannot learn anything; A willfully ignorant person can learn anything other than in the small areas of knowledge that they have ring-fenced as unassailable beliefs.

I don't see how logically these three things can be true at the same time
- I am a person who carefully considers evidence
- I choose not to carefully consider evidence that contradicts my beliefs
- I sincerely hold the belief that is being contradicted by evidence

Unless the person has carefully considered the evidence and doesn't find it convincing.

Your second premise holds the key. It should read: " I choose not to carefully consider evidence that contradicts concerns my beliefs on a particular subject"

The willfully ignorant person doesn't consider any evidence in respect to a particular topic or topics about which he is willfully ignorant. Even while he may well carefully consider the same evidence in respect to other, less cherished topics.

So you have the creationist who accepts "micro-evolution", but refuses to consider the possibility that a large number of small changes could ever add up to a change large enough to be actual evolution.

It's logically unassailable, and he will happily agree that if you keep adding one to any chosen small natural number for enough iterations, you will eventually exceed any chosen large natural number. But he simply will not consider that this same principle applies to small evolutionary changes. Indeed, he likely won't carefully consider any information about evolution - it will instead be classified under 'supports my belief' or 'does not support my belief', and be adjudged 'true' or 'false' on that single criterion.

Willful ignorance entails the selection of beliefs that require no support, and that brook no refutation.

- I am a person who carefully considers evidence
- I choose not to carefully consider evidence for certain of my beliefs
- I sincerely hold the belief for which I refuse to consider evidence

 

[blastula]

I keep hearing claims about wilful ignorance, but I still don't understand what it is or how it could be possible, epistemologically. Take an example:

- Person A believes people were created by God because they don't understand evolution and science

If this person is intentionally failing to learn evolution and science so they can continue their belief, wouldn't that imply they don't fully believe their own claim? If they know understanding science will undermine their claim, then they already believe in science. In which case the example wouldn't be wilful ignorance, it would be disingenuousness.

Or what am I missing?

I don't even want to know.

 

[rousseau]

You can determine the difference easily enough - a stupid person cannot learn anything; A willfully ignorant person can learn anything other than in the small areas of knowledge that they have ring-fenced as unassailable beliefs.

To me that doesn't sound like belief, that sounds like either cognitive dissonance or dis-ingenuousness. They don't refuse to accept evidence they refuse to admit that evidence is true for either material or psychological reasons. In which case it's not really ignorance, more a survival mechanism. So then the wilful is there, but the term ignorance doesn't seem to be very helpful.

But I'd think in most cases when people refuse to accept or admit evidence is true, it's because they are physiologically or psychologically (whatever you want to call it) incapable of processing the information. And it doesn't even need to mean 'I can't understand', but rather the physiological make-up of my mind will not allow me to seriously consider the evidence.

 

[Rhea]

Take for example mansplaining.

- I am a person who carefully considers evidence
- I choose interrupt and prevent from speaking anyone who might counter my current evidence, and instead make the conversation only about my current knowledge.
- I sincerely hold the belief for which I refuse to consider evidence

 

[rousseau]

You can determine the difference easily enough - a stupid person cannot learn anything; A willfully ignorant person can learn anything other than in the small areas of knowledge that they have ring-fenced as unassailable beliefs.

To me that doesn't sound like belief, that sounds like either cognitive dissonance or dis-ingenuousness. They don't refuse to accept evidence they refuse to admit that evidence is true for either material or psychological reasons. In which case it's not really ignorance, more a survival mechanism. So then the wilful is there, but the term ignorance doesn't seem to be very helpful.

But I'd think in most cases when people refuse to accept or admit evidence is true, it's because they are physiologically or psychologically (whatever you want to call it) incapable of processing the information. And it doesn't even need to mean 'I can't understand', but rather the physiological make-up of my mind will not allow me to seriously consider the evidence.

I guess you could call that 'wilfuly ignorant' if you wanted to, but it sounds like there's more going on there than just 'I don't want to accept your evidence'. Rather it's 'I don't want to accept your evidence because [reasons]'. So there's more at stake than just truth.

Either it's a play for some kind of material well-being and an example of dis-ingneuousness, or the ego protecting itself (physiologically unable).

Both of those cases just don't grok with both 'wilful' and 'ignorant' to me. Intentional ignorance seems like a misnomer.

- - - Updated - - -

Take for example mansplaining.

- I am a person who carefully considers evidence
- I choose interrupt and prevent from speaking anyone who might counter my current evidence, and instead make the conversation only about my current knowledge.
- I sincerely hold the belief for which I refuse to consider evidence

Wouldn't mansplaining be an example of the genetic fallacy, and invalidate the bolded?

 

[Speakpigeon]

I keep hearing claims about wilful ignorance, but I still don't understand what it is or how it could be possible, epistemologically. Take an example:

- Person A believes people were created by God because they don't understand evolution and science

If this person is intentionally failing to learn evolution and science so they can continue their belief, wouldn't that imply they don't fully believe their own claim? If they know understanding science will undermine their claim, then they already believe in science. In which case the example wouldn't be wilful ignorance, it would be disingenuousness.

Or what am I missing?

Understanding arguments requires the brain to spend a lot of energy. The brain can sometimes detect the kind of argument it'd better ignore. It's like somebody plucking his hands on his ears whenever someone tries to tell him he hasn't done his job. Ignorance saves energy. Understanding something can force you to do things you don't want to do. So, you're protecting yourself. And maybe you know you won't be able to produce a counter-interpretation to destroy the force of what is said to you. So, you just ignores it. Less painful that way. The point is that beliefs tell you what you should be doing and sometimes there are things you really don't want to do. Ignorance may be necessary to keep the kind of beliefs that's compatible with what you want to do. People can't believe in science if they don't understand it. But yes, science must look to them as a malevolent force trying to make them do what they don't want to do. They don't believe science as such because they make sure they don't understand it. They just believe in its power.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

You'd be surprised what the mind can wilfully do.
https://www.health.harvard.edu/mind-and-mood/6-ways-to-use-your-mind-to-control-pain

I don't even want to go there.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

You'd be surprised what the mind can wilfully do.
https://www.health.harvard.edu/mind-and-mood/6-ways-to-use-your-mind-to-control-pain

Hey, it looks like you can do all of that without belief in God! Who woulda thought!

Belief in God feels better if you feel free to reject God and even better if you have good reason to reject God. This shows God you're a really, really good lover of God. Amen.
EB

 

[bilby]

Take for example mansplaining.

- I am a person who carefully considers evidence
- I choose interrupt and prevent from speaking anyone who might counter my current evidence, and instead make the conversation only about my current knowledge.
- I sincerely hold the belief for which I refuse to consider evidence

Wouldn't mansplaining be You don't understand, mansplaining is an example of the genetic fallacy, and invalidates the bolded.

FTFY