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.
Originally posted by chissler
Who decides what is true?
Let's use 9/11 as an example. Believers of the official story consider this to be the truth. However, conspiracy theorists are still in search of the truth.
The truth can be nothing more than a myth for some.
So, who are the ignorant in regards to this subject? Who decides who is ignorant?
Which backs my claim, ignorance is opinionated.
Originally posted by chissler
You fail to see my point. September 11th is not what I am getting at. For you, the official story is unfathomable. Whether I agree or not, is beside the point. (I do agree ) But what I am trying to get at is, for you, to believe the story is 100% accurate, would be a form of ignorance.
For others, it is simply the truth.
There is you, I, and the material. We can both interpret the material in different ways. What you view as wholes or discrepancies, I may view as a solidified argument.
Do you see what I am saying? We support our side, and consider the other to be ignorance. Yet the other side views their's as the truth, and our side as ignorant.
So again I ask, to view someone as ignorant, is that a form of ignorance in itself? edit (bold) by Info
Originally posted by chissler
I'm saying everyone is capable of ignorance.
To quickly assume our own points are valid and others are inferior, may be a form of ignorance.
What I am looking for is some opinions on this statement.
Considering someone ignorant, is form of ignorance in itself.
Do you agree or disagree with this?
I'm not sure how I feel about it yet, I'm going to continue to think about it.
Originally posted by Infoholic
There are facts out there. Indisputable facts.
Originally posted by Infoholic
Me calling you ignorant for not believing the truthful fact does not make me ignorant.
Originally posted by chissler
Originally posted by Infoholic
There are facts out there. Indisputable facts.
Such as? I'm not interested in debating simplistic semantics, but I am interested to hear some indisputable facts. 9/11? Extra Terrestrial? Paranormal? Religion? Indicate a controversial subject, that carries some indisputable facts.
Originally posted by chissler
Originally posted by Infoholic
Me calling you ignorant for not believing the truthful fact does not make me ignorant.
But what if the facts you base your opinion on, are flawed? How can you be certain they are not flawed? How can you be certain that the facts you base your opinion on are valid, while the opinions other people base their opinion on are flawed?
How do you know, for sure, that your opinion is not ignorant? What if I proposed an argument that went against everything you believe, but based it on actual facts, would you be ignorant if you did not believe it?
Facts can be interpreted.
Originally posted by Infoholic
Then go find them.
Originally posted by Infoholic
If the fact I base my opinion on were flawed, I wouldn't believe them.
Originally posted by Infoholic
If you were to make an argument based on fact, and could prove said fact, I would probably believe it, since it is "fact" and not opinion. But if you want me to believe you, you'd better be able to prove it with fact and not opinion.
Originally posted by chissler
I've never stated that there are indisputable facts. You have. My point is merely to indicate that an indisputable fact to you, may not be indisputable to another. So facts that we consider indisputable, may not be indisputable at all.
Originally posted by chissler
I'll use Nature versus Nurture. Where do you come down? Do you believe in maturation or interaction? I believe in interaction, and I can fully support my claims with actual facts. However, maturationists can fully support their claims with actual facts. Who is wrong?
If I can provide facts to undermine your facts, where does that leave us? What I am saying is, sometimes we do not always see the flaw in the facts we base our opinion on. I consider it slightly naive to think we would not miss a flaw here or there. We all make mistakes, and it would be just that, a mistake.
But like I said, what of the scenario's with the facts contradict themselves? What about when the facts don't give a clear cut answer?
Originally posted by Infoholic
However, how can someone(s) disagree when a point is to be proven with no other way to construe it?
Originally posted by chissler
Thank you for your replies Infoholic, I've enjoyed them.
Originally posted by chissler
I'm saying everyone is capable of ignorance.
Considering someone ignorant, is form of ignorance in itself.
Do you agree or disagree with this?
Originally posted by chissler
But what if the facts you base your opinion on, are flawed?
Ignorance
Ignorance is a lack of knowledge, or a willful lack of desire to improve the efficiency, merit, effectiveness or usefulness of one's actions. Ignorance is also a "state of being ignorant" or unaware (not knowing).
Originally posted by chissler
So to consider someone ignorant, just for the sake of placing the label, is ignorance?
Ignorance
Ignorance is a lack of knowledge, or a willful lack of desire to improve the efficiency, merit, effectiveness or usefulness of one's actions. Ignorance is also a "state of being ignorant" or unaware (not knowing).
en.wikipedia.org...
Considering someone ignorant with little effort to adjust the state of mind, leads to assumptions in my opinion, which can be perceived as a state of not knowing. So is it suffice to say that on occasion, considering someone to be ignorant, is an act of ignorance in itself?
[edit on 5-12-2006 by chissler]
(pejorative definition) Ignorance 2) is the choice to not act or behave in accordance with regard to certain information in order to suit ones own needs/beliefs."I know better but I choose to ignore that and do/say/act in a way that behooves me."
Originally posted by Infoholic
Ignorance is a trait of someone that refuses to believe the truth, when it is told to them, knowing full well it is the truth.
Originally posted by Infoholic
I was just simply pointing out the part that was most relevant to the discussion.
Originally posted by chissler
Who is to determine what part is most relevant? The part that you have posted, is most important, in your opinion.
Why is your opinion, more valid than mine?