What is wilful ignorance?

[Speakpigeon]

Ah, good, I just learnt a new word:

mansplain
slang
For a man to explain something to someone, usually a woman, in a condescending manner. I've been doing this job for 20 years—I don't need some boy fresh out of college mansplaining it to me! Gee, thanks for mansplaining feminism to me.

EB

 

[fromderinside]

EB JB?

 

[ronburgundy]

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?

Willful ignorance does entail a form of being dishonest, but not simply consciously lying to others but rather being dishonest with oneself. It might seem impossible that a person could deceive themselves because they would have to know what the deceiver (themself) knows which means they are not really being deceived. But I think it is possible, b/c people are not really the same person from moment to moment, b/c the person they are is a product of their brain state at that moment and of the variable small % of everything they "know" that is actually within their conscious focus at that moment. Thus, people can "know" at some moments that science refutes creationism and "know" that science is more valid than faith, thus they avoid the science and/or make up lies and misrepresentations of it so they can discount it. But the part of them that knows these things is not always part of conscious awareness, so much of the time they are simply focused on their creationism belief and not consciously trying to avoid to distort the science. So, it's a small part of themselves lying to the larger part. Also, people are often not aware of their own motives and "will". They have a will to ignore the science and facts on something, but this will triggers biased cognition about those facts or their source in order to manufactures excuses that have the veneer of being good reasons to reject those facts. That veneer of reasoning is good enough to cover up what little awareness they had about their own biased will and motives to begin with. The process is self-perpetuating, b/c the more of a cover story and rationalization they build, the easier it becomes for them to build it further to the point where they can take on the science directly and find excuses to discount it without being obvious to themselves how intellectually dishonest and irrational they are being.

 

[Underseer]

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?

A while back, I read an article about some research that showed that most conservatives know that they're lying whenever they say "fake news!"

It seems to me that they know they're being fed a line of bullshit, and they probably don't care because the bullshit says that they're superior on account of their white skin, and they probably don't have any valid reasons to feel good about themselves.

 

[steve_bank]

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?

Climate change deniers are the best example.

When Galileo made his claims he upset the academic elite who made a living etching the theo-science to aristocrat\s. When he had people see his observations in his telescope they saw 'nothing'. Willful ignorance for personal reasons.

 

[Kharakov]

I know I'm willfully ignorant of the detrimental health effects of some things I enjoy.... although I pay the price with a hangover due to whatever I overindulge in. After 2 shots... another shot doesn't look nearly as threatening.

I just have to ignore the warning "do one, and you might as well do 20... go for it... do you really want to go to work tomorrow?"

 

[fast]

Wouldn’t willful ignorance be like the consequence of turning a blind eye to something? It’s like when we don’t know but “should have known” scenario. I had reason to investigate, and had I done so, I would of known, but because I didn’t, I don’t.

 

[fromderinside]

Blind eye? Near sighted, blind, far sighted, sure. But how many Long John Silvers are there anyho.....

Test for those recruited to Blind Institute in Connecticut were taken into NYC and had to get back blindfolded. Anyone here need a red tip?

 

[DBT]

I know I'm willfully ignorant of the detrimental health effects of some things I enjoy.... although I pay the price with a hangover due to whatever I overindulge in. After 2 shots... another shot doesn't look nearly as threatening.

I just have to ignore the warning "do one, and you might as well do 20... go for it... do you really want to go to work tomorrow?"

Work tomorrow? Nah, I don't thinks so.

 

[ronburgundy]

Wouldn’t willful ignorance be like the consequence of turning a blind eye to something? It’s like when we don’t know but “should have known” scenario. I had reason to investigate, and had I done so, I would of known, but because I didn’t, I don’t.

But notice your phrasing of "turning" a blind eye that you "had reason" to investigate it but didn't. The implication is a willful act to avoid the resulting information and knowledge rather than just accident or random laziness that might have just a easily led you to not investigate something would have supported your position.
That "willful" part distinguishes it from more honest and accidental ignorance, and it implies that while you are ignorant of the details what you would have known, you already do know that whatever it was it would have refuted your desired conclusion. Why else would you willfully turn a blind eye to it which implies deliberately divert your attention away. We might just happen to miss some information out of random laziness, but turning a blind eye and avoiding an investigation implies trying to ensure that your stay ignorant of that specific information. That doesn't make psychological sense, unless you already know enough to suspect that the details of that information will wind up going against your preferred beliefs, which would only be because you know on some level at some moments that what you believe is incorrect.

In fact, I think that is the kind of dishonest knowing enough to pretend you don't know that people mean when they say "should have known". It's why we hold people morally and sometimes legally responsible for consequences they "should have known", where we would not if it were a true and honest error of ignorance.

It is similar to when people engage in blatantly obvious fallacious reasoning to support an idea or to counter an alternative idea. It gives the veneer of engaging with the ideas, reasoning, and being rational. But when one uses rhetorical tactics that one easily sees through and often refutes when others engage in them, then it reveals a dishonesty where the person knows they are wrong enough to know they need to engage in such tactics rather than honestly valid reasoning, but is able to shut that internal inconsistency with what they know is valid argument out of awareness enough that the veneer of reasoning lets them maintain a delusion that that their belief is rationally defensible and thus valid.

 

[fast]

Good post