Speaking of concepts where CLEAR definitions

[Sorry!]

Was in the shower and I was thinking of this conversation I was having. They were completely ignorant to things as they really are. Instead they took them as how they THINK they are. i.e. science.

I assume he does this so that the concepts can fit to whatever he is arguing for or so that he can argue against them more easily. Is this unethical?

Does being happy with your thoughts take precedent over reality.

I'm not going into issues where semantics will come into play I'm speaking of concepts where CLEAR definitions are laid out such as scientific method. Someone can alter it, or simplify it to the point where it doesn't even make sense any more but it's no longer the same method they just think it is...

 

[JaredJames]

Look at religion, they are all split into various different groups of believers, they all interpret the 'stories' in various ways. Thats why people of the same religion end up having radically different beliefs. Just look at how many different Christian sects there are.

It's human nature to look only for what you want to see. No matter how many facts you are presented with, you will automatically disregard them until you find something to support your argument, regardless of how extreme/unbelievable. That's something scientists need to work against, they cannot afford to have these biases and require an open mind.

I consider myself a very open minded person, and always consider all facts presented to me equally (providing they are reputable). I seem to find myself constantly altering my own opinions as new information becomes available. It has become clear to me that as long as establishments, particularly the media, keep spewing out so called 'facts' with little or no scientific basis purely to get ratings, there is no chance for the public to form an unbiased and fair opinion (take nuclear energy as an example, people are against because of the news reports on Chernobyl giving 'dodgy' info at best without proper research etc.), and therefore it can be extremely difficult for scientists to educate people on those subjects, as all facts shown are either disregarded or twisted by the anti-(whatever) campaign to suit their cause.

Jared

 

[arunma]

Was in the shower and I was thinking of this conversation I was having. They were completely ignorant to things as they really are. Instead they took them as how they THINK they are. i.e. science.

I assume he does this so that the concepts can fit to whatever he is arguing for or so that he can argue against them more easily. Is this unethical?

Does being happy with your thoughts take precedent over reality.

I'm not going into issues where semantics will come into play I'm speaking of concepts where CLEAR definitions are laid out such as scientific method. Someone can alter it, or simplify it to the point where it doesn't even make sense any more but it's no longer the same method they just think it is...

Uh, I'm not really sure what you're talking about. Without some context of the conversation you were having, the topic of "ignorance" could be interpreted in quite a few different ways.

 

[JaredJames]

Uh, I'm not really sure what you're talking about. Without some context of the conversation you were having, the topic of "ignorance" could be interpreted in quite a few different ways.

I do agree there, I believe they are going for something along the lines of:
People have their own beliefs and opinions on various subjects. Some people who have very strong beliefs/opinions can disregard facts/new evidence which disproves them or can even twist/edit them as necessary to provide more evidence for themselves, taking the original statement out of context and making it fit their scenario.

Jared

 

[Moonbear]

Uh, I'm not really sure what you're talking about. Without some context of the conversation you were having, the topic of "ignorance" could be interpreted in quite a few different ways.

I'm not even sure why he was having a conversation with someone while in the shower. Or that's what the description sounded like. Context would really help here.

 

[Math Is Hard]

The mangled pronouns aren't helping.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Was in the shower and I was thinking of this conversation I was having. They were completely ignorant to things as they really are. Instead they took them as how they THINK they are. i.e. science.

I assume he does this so that the concepts can fit to whatever he is arguing for or so that he can argue against them more easily. Is this unethical?

Does being happy with your thoughts take precedent over reality.

I'm not going into issues where semantics will come into play I'm speaking of concepts where CLEAR definitions are laid out such as scientific method. Someone can alter it, or simplify it to the point where it doesn't even make sense any more but it's no longer the same method they just think it is...

You are asking if it is unethical to take scientific principles or facts out of context, or to misstate them, in order to support the beliefs that one already has?

 

[Pinu7]

Look at religion, they are all split into various different groups of believers, they all interpret the 'stories' in various ways. Thats why people of the same religion end up having radically different beliefs. Just look at how many different Christian sects there are.

It's human nature to look only for what you want to see. No matter how many facts you are presented with, you will automatically disregard them until you find something to support your argument, regardless of how extreme/unbelievable. That's something scientists need to work against, they cannot afford to have these biases and require an open mind.

I consider myself a very open minded person, and always consider all facts presented to me equally (providing they are reputable). I seem to find myself constantly altering my own opinions as new information becomes available. It has become clear to me that as long as establishments, particularly the media, keep spewing out so called 'facts' with little or no scientific basis purely to get ratings, there is no chance for the public to form an unbiased and fair opinion (take nuclear energy as an example, people are against because of the news reports on Chernobyl giving 'dodgy' info at best without proper research etc.), and therefore it can be extremely difficult for scientists to educate people on those subjects, as all facts shown are either disregarded or twisted by the anti-(whatever) campaign to suit their cause.

Jared

I actually disagree with you. I think bias is important(as long as there are several competing ones), especially in intellectual communities.

I mean, if Einstein and Bohr did not have their dogmatic deterministic and probabilistic biased beliefs, we may not have Quantum mechanics.

Also, if we did not have biased political think tanks, no one will be that constant watch dog of the other party in influence.

If we did not have strong theological bias(excluding,of course, any violence stemming out of religious extremism), there would be no need to have a complex theological system and religion would be literally as simple and boring as "cause' the Pope said so."

 

[Pengwuino]

Was in the shower and I was thinking of this conversation I was having. They were completely ignorant to things as they really are. Instead they took them as how they THINK they are. i.e. science.

I assume he does this so that the concepts can fit to whatever he is arguing for or so that he can argue against them more easily. Is this unethical?

Does being happy with your thoughts take precedent over reality.

I'm not going into issues where semantics will come into play I'm speaking of concepts where CLEAR definitions are laid out such as scientific method. Someone can alter it, or simplify it to the point where it doesn't even make sense any more but it's no longer the same method they just think it is...

What?

Seriously, what on God's green Earth are you talking about? Are you talking to yourself in the shower? Is your shampoo an unethical thinker?

 

[rootX]

Was in the shower and I was thinking of this conversation I was having

I think he was just thinking about the conversation he had earlier that day. Do people not think while they shower?

I assume he does this so that the concepts can fit to whatever he is arguing for or so that he can argue against them more easily. Is this unethical?

No.

Ignorant/fool can only influence another ignorant/fool IMO. I tend to stay away from those kind of people.

 

[moose]

I knew this guy once. Why would he do this though. Maybe it was so he could get there. But I don't think so.

Wait what.

 

[lisab]

I knew this guy once. Why would he do this though. Maybe it was so he could get there. But I don't think so.

Wait what.

omg I think I used to date that guy.

 

[Pengwuino]

I knew this guy once. Why would he do this though. Maybe it was so he could get there. But I don't think so.

Exactly! It's just like how society elevates political leaders to be superhuman. The structure of society needs to take on a more dynamic system where we integrate leaders with those people who choose said leadership.

Wait what.

 

[Math Is Hard]

Is your shampoo an unethical thinker?

I don't know about its thoughts, but sometimes I think my shampoo just tells me what I want to hear. Is that ethical?

 

[Borg]

I don't know about its thoughts, but sometimes I think my shampoo just tells me what I want to hear. Is that ethical?

Are you saying that the Irish Spring maidens are going to show up either?

 

[moose]

Exactly! It's just like how society elevates political leaders to be superhuman. The structure of society needs to take on a more dynamic system where we integrate leaders with those people who choose said leadership.

We should not allow ourselves to be crammed into this rat maze. We should not submit to dehumanization. We have got to realize we're being conditioned on a mass scale.

Wait what.

 

[lisab]

We should not allow ourselves to be crammed into this rat maze. We should not submit to dehumanization. We have got to realize we're being conditioned on a mass scale.

Wait what.

Right. I am not a number, but if I were, I would be a rational number

Wait what.

 

[JaredJames]

I actually disagree with you. I think bias is important(as long as there are several competing ones), especially in intellectual communities.
I mean, if Einstein and Bohr did not have their dogmatic deterministic and probabilistic biased beliefs, we may not have Quantum mechanics.

Yes bias is good, and it is needed, however what I meant was that it cannot be allowed to prevent progress. As in, just because one scientist has a particular belief, (s)he cannot take that belief and no matter what new research is done and what theories are put forward, they still maintain their belief and disregard all new evidence. Or, even to interpret the facts in a way which supports their theory despite having no relevance on the subject.

Also, if we did not have biased political think tanks, no one will be that constant watch dog of the other party in influence.

Given the current state of our politics (in the UK), what with mp expenses and such. How can you make this statement? The MPs pay and expenses are ultimately controlled by legislation written by the MPs themselves. Self regulation if you like. And as was pointed out recently, there is nothing the public can do about it until an election.

If we did not have strong theological bias(excluding,of course, any violence stemming out of religious extremism), there would be no need to have a complex theological system and religion would be literally as simple and boring as "cause' the Pope said so."

With regards to this, I wasn't pointing out relgious bias as such, but more the ability of religous people to read the same text and interpret it in their own way. Purely an example of a situation where people can twist and alter facts (not that I consider any religious text as fact), to suit their needs, (see doucmentary by Louis Theroux: The Most Hated Family in America).

Basically, as I pointed out above, people will believe what they want to believe if it supports their cause. I never understand how, regardless of the evidence set in front of them, no matter how strong it may be, a person will stick to what they believe, especially if it is a faith based belief, (aka creationism).

Jared

 

[Math Is Hard]

Right. I am not a number, but if I were, I would be a rational number

Wait what.

I can see how you would opt for that. Post-modernist deconstructionist reinterpretation theory tells us that we're not really cognizant of any of these toxic innuendos in mathematics that we subconsciously process in our classroom lessons. Even if we vaguely are, we may not fully appreciate the anti-feminist, even racist bias, with rational numbers clearly being labeled as masculine, and irrational numbers as feminine/minority numbers, that erodes our social view of gender and "other", and may take us years of therapy to overcome. This is clearly Freudian penis envy.

Wait what?

 

[Sorry!]

Well then I can see the majority of the people who replied would rather attempt to make me a fool and redicule. Well done guys. I applaud you, seriously, you got me looking quite stupid over here.

Anyways. Yes as the other people have noticed I was speaking of IGNORANCE being UNETHICAL not my shampoo.

I think that ignorance occurs when people place their happiness above the continued sucess of humanity. This occurs frequently in religion (read Nietzche regarding this) but it also occurs in the general community such as with global warming. Some people will just be ignorant continually and allow global warming to get out of hand.

So I think ignorance in most cases is unethical.

 

[IwillBeGood]

Well then I can see the majority of the people who replied would rather attempt to make me a fool and redicule. Well done guys. I applaud you, seriously, you got me looking quite stupid over here.

Anyways. Yes as the other people have noticed I was speaking of IGNORANCE being UNETHICAL not my shampoo.

I think that ignorance occurs when people place their happiness above the continued sucess of humanity. This occurs frequently in religion (read Nietzche regarding this) but it also occurs in the general community such as with global warming. Some people will just be ignorant continually and allow global warming to get out of hand.

So I think ignorance in most cases is unethical.

Being stupid is lovelier than being smart
most ignorant people are cute. I love to be friends with them

No one would want to be always in touch with too smart men if s/she is not one of them!

 

[Math Is Hard]

Well then I can see the majority of the people who replied would rather attempt to make me a fool and redicule. Well done guys. I applaud you, seriously, you got me looking quite stupid over here.

It's not that. We just seize anything posted in General Discussion as an opportunity for fun and complete derailment of the topic.

We love you - we're just yanking your chain and goofing around.

 

[Sorry!]

Why was it even moved lol? This would be a discussion of ethics which I'm certain has philosophical merit.

 

[Math Is Hard]

Why was it even moved lol? This would be a discussion of ethics which I'm certain has philosophical merit.

hmm.. I didn't know it was moved. I first saw it in GD.

 

[DaveC426913]

Why was it even moved lol? This would be a discussion of ethics which I'm certain has philosophical merit.

It's not a discussion of anything (which is the message to be gleaned from the stream of nonsensical replies).

Why don't you tell us what happened so we can join you?

 

[Sorry!]

The nonsensical replies came after it got moved from the philosophy section hahahaha. Obviously when you first post something it isn't a discussion YET. In my post just now I said this would be a discussion of ethics.EDIT:

And I would discuss what I was talking about with this person but it has to do with religion so I decided to leave that out. You can substitute any popular ignorant thought and it would suffice though... For instance earlier I posted about global warming.

 

[DaveC426913]

In my post just now I said this would be a discussion of ethics.

Great. What is the subject of the discussion? Because so far, it seems to be the threadular equivalent of a sentence fragment without a noun.

 

[GeorginaS]

Anyways. Yes as the other people have noticed I was speaking of IGNORANCE being UNETHICAL not my shampoo.

So I think ignorance in most cases is unethical.

I can't even begin to make sense of this proposition because I don't think that states of being can inherently be unethical. Saying "ignorance" is unethical is like saying "intelligence" is unethical. That's nonsensical.

The nonsensical replies came after it got moved from the philosophy section hahahaha. Obviously when you first post something it isn't a discussion YET. In my post just now I said this would be a discussion of ethics.

This thread was moved from the first post, not as a result of the responses. The responses just made it very entertaining. There are some clever people around here who have great senses of humour and it wasn't coming at your expense, Sorry!. It's unfortunate you feel that way.

I'm pretty sure you can't simply declare a thread "about" something in particular, especially without stating your proposition really clearly. And, further, discussions go where they will. Ideas flow naturally from each other.

 

[GeorginaS]

Great. What is the subject of the discussion? Because so far, it seems to be the threadular equivalent of a sentence fragment without a noun.

Oooo that is an excellent bit of imagery. I just may steal that.

 

[Sorry!]

I can't even begin to make sense of this proposition because I don't think that states of being can inherently be unethical. Saying "ignorance" is unethical is like saying "intelligence" is unethical. That's nonsensical.



This thread was moved from the first post, not as a result of the responses. The responses just made it very entertaining. There are some clever people around here who have great senses of humour and it wasn't coming at your expense, Sorry!. It's unfortunate you feel that way.

I'm pretty sure you can't simply declare a thread "about" something in particular, especially without stating your proposition really clearly. And, further, discussions go where they will. Ideas flow naturally from each other.

Ignorance to me in this sense means the act of being ignorant.
Yes, I know the replies came after it was moved. That was what I said anyways.

It is clear that what I was meaning to discuss was in the OP as the post RIGHT after it was perfectly on topic. People understood what I was saying fine I guess they are just bored and want to have fun?

 

[DaveC426913]

People understood what I was saying fine I guess they are just bored and want to have fun?

Well, I'll take this bullet.

Can you state the point/question again for those of us who missed it the first time? Your first post has no meat to chew on.

 

[Sorry!]

1)I assume he does this so that the concepts can fit to whatever he is arguing for or so that he can argue against them more easily. Is this unethical?

2)Does being happy with your thoughts take precedent over reality.

3) scientific method. Someone can alter it, or simplify it to the point where it doesn't even make sense any more but it's no longer the same method they just think it is...

4) I think that ignorance occurs when people place their happiness above the continued sucess of humanity. This occurs frequently in religion (read Nietzche regarding this) but it also occurs in the general community such as with global warming. Some people will just be ignorant continually and allow global warming to get out of hand.

5)
And I would discuss what I was talking about with this person but it has to do with religion so I decided to leave that out. You can substitute any popular ignorant thought and it would suffice though... For instance earlier I posted about global warming.

In a nutshell:
Is a person being unethical if they are being ignorant. Choosing their own personal happiness over humanity.

 

[GeorginaS]

Ignorance to me in this sense means the act of being ignorant.

Okay, then, are you talking about "willful ignorance" as opposed to simply not-knowing-any-better-type-ignorance?

 

[DaveC426913]

In a nutshell:
Is a person being unethical if they are being ignorant. Choosing their own personal happiness over humanity.

Ah. I see. OK.


No. It is every person's right to pursue their own happiness (absent hurting others).

.. I was going to back that up with more stuff, but I realized it needs no qualification or enhancement. Simply, full stop.

 

[moose]

The nonsensical replies came after it got moved from the philosophy section hahahaha. Obviously when you first post something it isn't a discussion YET. In my post just now I said this would be a discussion of ethics.EDIT:

And I would discuss what I was talking about with this person but it has to do with religion so I decided to leave that out. You can substitute any popular ignorant thought and it would suffice though... For instance earlier I posted about global warming.

I initially made a pointless post because this is GD and I had no idea what you were trying to get at. I would have asked for clarification, but I knew that you would end up clarifying yourself anyway (which you have). That's part of what's wonderful about GD. It wasn't poking fun at you, it was poking around at your post more or less. Read your original post and tell me it makes perfect sense.

EDIT: I agree with you in the sense that if someone has a decision to make that affects others, then it's unethical to be ignorant.