It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Are we truly denying ignorance, or are we helping to propagate it?

page: 1
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 12:34 PM
link   
I'll admit that I haven't posted much, but I definitely read threads. In the many threads that I have read through, I've noticed that we all have a tendency to allow our personal biases to interfere with the process of deductive reasoning. When presented with undeniable facts, we allow ourselves to distort them, in order to make them fit the narrative which we personally believe. Not one of us is above doing this, as it's part of the human psych.

Whether it be a political, social, religious, or moral issue, we tend to take a hard-line stance and are very unlikely to be swayed into supporting anything different than what we already are programmed to believe. This is due to motivated reasoning.


Motivated reasoning is an emotion-biased decision-making phenomenon studied in cognitive science and social psychology. This term describes the role of motivation in cognitive processes such as decision-making and attitude change in a number of paradigms, including:

Cognitive dissonance reduction
Beliefs about others on whom one's own outcomes depend
Evaluation of evidence related to one's own outcomes

Cognitive strategy
The processes of motivated reasoning are a type of inferred justification strategy which is used to mitigate cognitive dissonance. When people form and cling to false beliefs despite overwhelming evidence, the phenomenon is labeled "motivated reasoning". In other words, "rather than search rationally for information that either confirms or disconfirms a particular belief, people actually seek out information that confirms what they already believe." This is "a form of implicit emotion regulation in which the brain converges on judgments that minimize negative and maximize positive affect states associated with threat to or attainment of motives.


en.wikipedia.org...

On the other side of the coin we have motivated skepticism, which makes us more skeptical of things we don't want to hear.


Motivated skepticism
Motivated skepticism is the mistake of applying more skepticism to claims that you don't like (or intuitively disbelieve), than to claims that you do like. Because emotional disposition towards a claim isn't generally evidence about its truth, including it in the process of arriving at a belief means holding the belief partly for reasons other than because it's true.


wiki.lesswrong.com...

As this is a conspiracy site, most of us are of the opinion that all of those in an authoritative or informational position are not to be trusted. As history has shown, their is some basis for our opinion. Still though, when facts prove otherwise, we tend to alter them to suit our own opinions.

Are we doing ourselves and others a disservice by blindly sticking to our own beliefs? I challenge all to question everything, including what you already deem as fact. That is how we'll all grow more knowledgeable and enlightened.




posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 12:38 PM
link   
a reply to: JDHellraiser
There is certainly a Political Polarity here that is unproductive.



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 12:39 PM
link   
Denying the ignorance since the day one! Tell me about it. This site is all about---(Different lies).



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 12:42 PM
link   
a reply to: JDHellraiser

Those who know the truth are labeled as liars by those who are blissfully
ignorant.



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 12:53 PM
link   
a reply to: JDHellraiser

In terms of argument and disputation, there is little escape from our biases if we resort to the thinking and emotions of relativism and solipsism, which require the belief that our inner thoughts and feelings are primary to any outer principles or methods. Only by knowing our biases, our fallacies, and how they operate, along with adopting principles and methods of inquiry, can we hope to use our thoughts and emotions in a productive manner in the quest for knowledge and truth.



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 12:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: JDHellraiser
I'll admit that I haven't posted much, but I definitely read threads. In the many threads that I have read through, I've noticed that we all have a tendency to allow our personal biases to interfere with the process of deductive reasoning. When presented with undeniable facts, we allow ourselves to distort them, in order to make them fit the narrative which we personally believe. Not one of us is above doing this, as it's part of the human psych.

Whether it be a political, social, religious, or moral issue, we tend to take a hard-line stance and are very unlikely to be swayed into supporting anything different than what we already are programmed to believe. This is due to motivated reasoning.


Motivated reasoning is an emotion-biased decision-making phenomenon studied in cognitive science and social psychology. This term describes the role of motivation in cognitive processes such as decision-making and attitude change in a number of paradigms, including:

Cognitive dissonance reduction
Beliefs about others on whom one's own outcomes depend
Evaluation of evidence related to one's own outcomes

Cognitive strategy
The processes of motivated reasoning are a type of inferred justification strategy which is used to mitigate cognitive dissonance. When people form and cling to false beliefs despite overwhelming evidence, the phenomenon is labeled "motivated reasoning". In other words, "rather than search rationally for information that either confirms or disconfirms a particular belief, people actually seek out information that confirms what they already believe." This is "a form of implicit emotion regulation in which the brain converges on judgments that minimize negative and maximize positive affect states associated with threat to or attainment of motives.


en.wikipedia.org...

On the other side of the coin we have motivated skepticism, which makes us more skeptical of things we don't want to hear.


Motivated skepticism
Motivated skepticism is the mistake of applying more skepticism to claims that you don't like (or intuitively disbelieve), than to claims that you do like. Because emotional disposition towards a claim isn't generally evidence about its truth, including it in the process of arriving at a belief means holding the belief partly for reasons other than because it's true.


wiki.lesswrong.com...

As this is a conspiracy site, most of us are of the opinion that all of those in an authoritative or informational position are not to be trusted. As history has shown, their is some basis for our opinion. Still though, when facts prove otherwise, we tend to alter them to suit our own opinions.

Are we doing ourselves and others a disservice by blindly sticking to our own beliefs? I challenge all to question everything, including what you already deem as fact. That is how we'll all grow more knowledgeable and enlightened.




This is one of those great, well thought out threads that is destined to go nowhere....

Dropping the logical answer on ATS is sunlight to a vampire lol



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 12:57 PM
link   
a reply to: JDHellraiser

Yes when met with concrete facts that don't meet their narrative they refer to ad hominem, distort the perspective using mental gymnastics, or they go post the same things in different thread



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 01:05 PM
link   
a reply to: JDHellraiser




As this is a conspiracy site, most of us are of the opinion that all of those in an authoritative or informational position are not to be trusted. As history has shown, their is some basis for our opinion. Still though, when facts prove otherwise, we tend to alter them to suit our own opinions.

Are we doing ourselves and others a disservice by blindly sticking to our own beliefs? I challenge all to question everything, including what you already deem as fact. That is how we'll all grow more knowledgeable and enlightened.


It seems as if you are suggesting that we won't accept facts from those in power, because we simply don't believe their version of facts, and would rather maintain some kind of mistaken belief in our own biased opinions. That we should actually accept those facts that are presented by "authorities" when they are "proven" to be true.

I think you will find that most here argue about the provenance of these so called "facts". Just because "they" say its true, doesn't make it so.

That is where most debate arises.

Or am I misreading you?




posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 01:22 PM
link   
a reply to: mamabeth

Yet those whom are blissfully ignorant may know a different truth. We only have to be able to overcome our personal feelings in order to see it.



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 01:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Jonjonj

I'm trying to convey that one must question everything, and not let personal biases hide the truth. Even a pathological liar speaks the truth, every so often. Yet, due to their history of lying, that truth is likely to be mistaken as false.



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 01:34 PM
link   
a reply to: JDHellraiser

nvm
edit on 25-9-2016 by Jonjonj because: subtraction



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 01:55 PM
link   
a reply to: JDHellraiser

Uh-oh... I don't think self-reflection comes easy to this crowd. Good luck, though.

Personally, I think you have some super valid points. I'm inexplicably distrustful towards some things and I catch myself believing negative assumptions about those things without much scrutiny. So I know what it's like to be myopic in that scope. Keeping ourselves in check is critical to operating somewhere that is at least close to being in the ballpark of the objective truth.

You can spend one day on this site and see what happens when people lose sight of that.



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 02:06 PM
link   
The majority of the time things are not so black and white but a vast grey area. In that area the truth benders live or more better being economical with the truth. Then you have what I call false self fulfilling truths. The very best example and I love it "the devils best defense is proving he doesn't exist". A self fulfilling perpetual lie that no-one can argue against. ie. if you believe the devil exists he's won. If you believe the devil doesn't exist he's still won on the premise that it's his defence to not be found. By the way I don't believe in the devil.



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 02:07 PM
link   
In the case of 9/11, a quote from a film comes to mind, people don't want to hear the truth. The reason for it is simple, our belief system is built on a house of cards. If you pull out the wrong card, the entire house falls, resulting in a belief system that cannot differentiate between a round earth and that of a flat earth (madness ensues). So its not that people don't want to accept the truth, many are protecting their belief system from collapse. And if a belief system has been built on the assumption that government and media are truthful, its already on very shaky ground. So instead of confronting people with logic, its often better to plant seeds (strange how building 7 fell without a plane hitting it), so people can work out a greater truth in their own time.



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 02:08 PM
link   
a reply to: JDHellraiser
I'm musing here jd. Could it be that on an existential level, we think that 'who we are' is what we believe? That is, our accumulation of beliefs add up to how we see 'ourselves' as being? That is pretty vague but enough to continue for now.

As we mature we either take things basically at face value, that is how they are presented to us or at one time or another make a decision to try and lift the veil of illusion (after we have heard that there is one that is) and then seek what is beyond it. What is then found is then thought to be the 'truth' because it 'seems' to answer those questions that brought us to that point in the first place. We then become DTW. (deeper truth warriors)

One thing that DTWs need is armor and weapons, as warriors we be. The weapons of course are primarily other pieces of 'the truth'. More facts more suspicions, more examples of how what we see as the truth IS the truth. Weapons with which to if not defeat the enemy, at least convert them.

The armor is more to what you mention above. Defensive stances. Defend the parameter, defend the rear defend everything. Now this one be one thing if it were just a political position, which I guess in some cases it may be. But I think it goes more deeply than that.

One thing we hear a lot of around here is paraphrases like this. " I am now awake" while others are not, they are 'sheeple'.
"I have thrown off the shackles of brainwashing and you have not." "I am reborn in the truth". And here is the thing about this being reborn. Once we have been reborn, we need to accept 'those truth's as part of who we have been reborn as. Stripping ourselves or changing those beliefs means that we are not who we think we are. Am I explaining this well enough.

Some how JD, I think it is beliefs that are screwing with us. I prefer to think rather than believing something.
Now I don't know if any of that makes sense as most of it is stuff that has been rumbling around in my head for a while but there you go. I'm just thinking, not believing.



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 02:18 PM
link   
Yesterdays ignorance is tomorrows facts!



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 03:23 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

I think that makes perfect sense. In the process of being reborn, so to say, it's hard to let go of those beliefs that we harbor. Thus we have a mental tug of war between the two views.



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 04:14 PM
link   
a reply to: JDHellraiser

As individuals, we are all trying to promote our particular slant on reality. That's a given.

As a large international community of people, we prevent any given individual's biased world view from being unconditionally accepted by testing it with the fire of wisdom and reason. That way we all grow as individuals.

I disagree that we are "propagating ignorance". Has anyone ever posted a thread which had no critical comments?

I'm not sure what you are driving at.



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 04:57 PM
link   
a reply to: CJCrawley

True that as a community, we tend to enlighten each other. As individuals, we each tend to adhere to our point of view. The meaning I was attempting to bring to light was that if, as individuals, we could set aside bias, then maybe we could then learn something new from others. Then again, maybe I'm looking at this from a biased perspective myself.



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 05:06 PM
link   
a reply to: JDHellraiser

I am personally here on ATS to chill out. Otherwise forums like this can bring some things to the light, but mostly they are just a flash of an idea. The real deal behind understanding the pros and cons of the game is not reading ATS but digging into serious literature, and having connections on hight level.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join