• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Regression of Ignorance

William Rea

William Rea

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 23, 2010
Messages
8,951
Reaction score
2,232
Location
UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
As an analogue to the 'unmoved mover' response that it is, 'turtles all the way down', it is also, 'ignorance all the way down'.

If your argument for anything supernatural is based upon human ignorance of the true nature of reality then, you have conceded the argument.
 
William Rea said:
As an analogue to the 'unmoved mover' response that it is, 'turtles all the way down', it is also, 'ignorance all the way down'.

If your argument for anything supernatural is based upon human ignorance of the true nature of reality then, you have conceded the argument.
Click to expand...

Considering that there isn't a single person who knows the true nature of reality, are you suggesting that there can be no conversation about it?
 
Crovax said:
Considering that there isn't a single person who knows the true nature of reality, are you suggesting that there can be no conversation about it?
Click to expand...

I have no problem with arguments about the true nature of reality, I believe that it is the underlying point of Philosophy.

My problem is (ab)using it as a basis for justifying an assumption.
 
William Rea said:
As an analogue to the 'unmoved mover' response that it is, 'turtles all the way down', it is also, 'ignorance all the way down'.

If your argument for anything supernatural is based upon human ignorance of the true nature of reality then, you have conceded the argument.
Click to expand...

When we lack information, competing speculations have equal weight.

176cea633274fb1caa0ff05a3e3028aa.jpg


The result is stalemate, since no conclusion can be drawn with confidence.
 
Absentglare said:
When we lack information, competing speculations have equal weight.

176cea633274fb1caa0ff05a3e3028aa.jpg


The result is stalemate, since no conclusion can be drawn with confidence.
Click to expand...

Indeed, any old crap you can pull out of your ass is given equal weight to any other old crap you can pull out of your ass.

I am going to create a list of phrases that are warnings that you are about to abuse ignorance (PS, that is a rhetorical 'you' that I am using).
 
William Rea said:
I have no problem with arguments about the true nature of reality, I believe that it is the underlying point of Philosophy.

My problem is (ab)using it as a basis for justifying an assumption.
Click to expand...

Well I think that has to be decided on a case by case basis
 
Crovax said:
Considering that there isn't a single person who knows the true nature of reality, are you suggesting that there can be no conversation about it?
Click to expand...

Only if it's the answers he wants to hear...;)
 
William Rea said:
As an analogue to the 'unmoved mover' response that it is, 'turtles all the way down', it is also, 'ignorance all the way down'.

If your argument for anything supernatural is based upon human ignorance of the true nature of reality then, you have conceded the argument.
Click to expand...

All human thought is embedded in ignorance and all is based on the unknown with only a small and seemingly dependable structure of hard facts floating in the fluffy fog behind the perceived certainty.
 
Crovax said:
Considering that there isn't a single person who knows the true nature of reality, are you suggesting that there can be no conversation about it?
Click to expand...

There's nothing wrong with having a conversation about anything, but pretending that we know more than we actually know because we're uncomfortable admitting our ignorance is childish. That's really what religion is based on. It's a giant argument from ignorance. Theists don't know something, that makes them uncomfortable, therefore they make up answers out of whole cloth and demand that their beliefs are true. And when we point out what they're doing, they get butt-hurt. As I said, childish.
 
Cephus said:
There's nothing wrong with having a conversation about anything, but pretending that we know more than we actually know because we're uncomfortable admitting our ignorance is childish. That's really what religion is based on. It's a giant argument from ignorance. Theists don't know something, that makes them uncomfortable, therefore they make up answers out of whole cloth and demand that their beliefs are true. And when we point out what they're doing, they get butt-hurt. As I said, childish.
Click to expand...

I would say that is a pretty ignorant view of religion
 
Crovax said:
I would say that is a pretty ignorant view of religion
Click to expand...

No, that's a very accurate view of religion. It's just one that makes the religious uncomfortable.
 
Crovax said:
Considering that there isn't a single person who knows the true nature of reality, are you suggesting that there can be no conversation about it?
Click to expand...

Sure. But the conversation is not very fruitful if one side thinks the cultural mythologies that they have grown up with are a starting point for the conversation. That's like trying to argue with a Hindu who wants to say that Brahma vomited up the world to get things started, and that should be as equally valid a position as the latest theories of expansionary cosmology.
 
ataraxia said:
Sure. But the conversation is not very fruitful if one side thinks the cultural mythologies that they have grown up with are a starting point for the conversation. That's like trying to argue with a Hindu who wants to say that Brahma vomited up the world to get things started, and that should be as equally valid a position as the latest theories of expansionary cosmology.
Click to expand...

One is based on evidence, the other on wishful thinking. They are not remotely comparable.
 
Cephus said:
No, that's a very accurate view of religion. It's just one that makes the religious uncomfortable.
Click to expand...

No it's very ignorant and even worse it's willful ignorance.
 
OK, here is a first example...

ashurbanipal said:
...I think there are some ways around this. We don't know, for instance, why electrons tunnel. Perhaps a non-physical mind has some control over when or whether electrons aggregated at synapses tunnel across the synaptic gap, leading to entrainment within the cortical column and thus creating observed patterns of neural firing. Now I have no idea whether this is how things actually are--I'm merely pointing out that foreclosing on the possibility is premature...
Click to expand...

1. 'Science can't explain, therefore...'
2. 'I'm just asking questions...'
3. 'Xxxxs are closed minded...'
 
William Rea said:
OK, here is a first example...



1. 'Science can't explain, therefore...'
2. 'I'm just asking questions...'
3. 'Xxxxs are closed minded...'
Click to expand...

Science can't explain X, therefore Y is probably not a good way to argue (although I wonder whether you realize that you yourself do it). Science can't explain X, therefore possibly Y is a perfectly fine way to argue.

As for 2 and 3, where you get those out of this passage of mine, I have no idea.
 
ashurbanipal said:
Science can't explain X, therefore Y is probably not a good way to argue (although I wonder whether you realize that you yourself do it). Science can't explain X, therefore possibly Y is a perfectly fine way to argue.

As for 2 and 3, where you get those out of this passage of mine, I have no idea.
Click to expand...
I will challenge you to find an instance of where I said that.
 
ashurbanipal said:
Science can't explain X, therefore Y is probably not a good way to argue (although I wonder whether you realize that you yourself do it). Science can't explain X, therefore possibly Y is a perfectly fine way to argue.

As for 2 and 3, where you get those out of this passage of mine, I have no idea.
Click to expand...

Science can't explain lightning bolts, therefore Zeus throwing around lightning bolts is a perfectly fine way to argue.

Any problems with the above line of thinking?

"God was always invented to explain mystery. God is always invented to explain those things that you do not understand. Now, when you finally discover how something works, you get some laws which you're taking away from God; you don't need him anymore. But you need him for the other mysteries. So therefore you leave him to create the universe because we haven't figured that out yet; you need him for understanding those things which you don't believe the laws will explain, such as consciousness, or why you only live to a certain length of time — life and death — stuff like that. God is always associated with those things that you do not understand...

But the scientist has a lot of experience with ignorance and doubt and uncertainty, and this experience is of very great importance, I think. When a scientist doesn’t know the answer to a problem, he is ignorant. When he has a hunch as to what the result is, he is uncertain. And when he is pretty darn sure of what the result is going to be, he is still in some doubt. We have found it of paramount importance that in order to progress we must recognize our ignorance and leave room for doubt. Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty — some most unsure, some nearly sure, but none absolutely certain.
Now, we scientists are used to this, and we take it for granted that it is perfectly consistent to be unsure, that it is possible to live and not know. But I don’t know whether everyone realizes this is true. Our freedom to doubt was born out of a struggle against authority in the early days of science. It was a very deep and strong struggle: permit us to question — to doubt — to not be sure. I think that it is important that we do not forget this struggle and thus perhaps lose what we have gained."
-Richard Feynman, Nobel Laureate in physics
Click to expand...
 
Cephus said:
No, that's a very accurate view of religion. It's just one that makes the religious uncomfortable.
Click to expand...

No, i don't think you understand faith very well, if at all, based on your argument.

For that matter, i think a lot of people who consider themselves religious don't really understand it, either. The origins of the Greek gods, for example, may have been attempts to explain the unknown, but i'm skeptical that all the Greeks took them so seriously. Some people treat religion not as a literal, absolute thing, but as a way to define the direction of their character.
 
William Rea said:
OK, here is a first example...



1. 'Science can't explain, therefore...'
2. 'I'm just asking questions...'
3. 'Xxxxs are closed minded...'
Click to expand...

It is certainly possible for things that science fails to explain to be explained by things outside of what we now know as science. I didn't see an assertion of a conclusion, electrons tunnel therefore god exists; more like that there is more to reality than what we already know.

Claiming, "since you don't have conclusive evidence either way, you should not hypothesize" is an uncreative approach to inquiry.
 
ataraxia said:
Science can't explain lightning bolts, therefore Zeus throwing around lightning bolts is a perfectly fine way to argue.

Any problems with the above line of thinking?
Click to expand...

Let's assume that all of theism has origins in our attempt to explain things that we don't understand.

Do you think that this disproves the theories of theists?

The truth of this ignorance is that we cannot assert one way or another. I don't like the idea of shooting down suggestions just because they sound absurd based on what we know now. What we know now is still very limited.
 
Absentglare said:
Let's assume that all of theism has origins in our attempt to explain things that we don't understand.

Do you think that this disproves the theories of theists?
Click to expand...

Chances of mythologies that ancient peoples came up with being true are slim enough to be safely ignored.

The truth of this ignorance is that we cannot assert one way or another.
Click to expand...

While no assertions can be 100%, some assertions have a few more mountains of evidence behind them than others.

And, some puzzling assertions can be dismissed when the psychological or social/cultural roots behind them is discovered and understood. For example, when I know that the fear of the boogy man is a manifestation of my 5-year-old's fear of the unknown, the dark, and inability to explain that funny tapping sound outside his window, I will not spend an inordinate time considering the possibility that this alleged boogy man is actually real. I will instead focus my energies in trying to address the fears and uncertainties behind it. This is not to deny that the EXPERIENCE is very real for the child, but that is not the same thing as the object of those feelings are real. That can usually safely be dismissed.

I don't like the idea of shooting down suggestions just because they sound absurd based on what we know now. What we know now is still very limited.
Click to expand...

That should not be license to accept any fool thing as good as any other. But some explanations are better than others. And traditional cultural mythologies can, I think, safely be ignored as actual explanations of what may be happening.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom