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.

 

How do we free the ignorant?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 09:58 AM
link   
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.




posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 10:32 AM
link   

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.


The story given by the government in regards to 9/11, cannot be depicted as the truth, since the story is as full of holes as swiss cheese.

Not believing a story like that doesn't make anyone ignorant, that makes them to be "denying ignorance".




posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 11:16 AM
link   
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 on 3-12-2006 by chissler]



posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 11:20 AM
link   

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


So, are you saying we are both (or anyone for that matter) ignorant?

As I've said, provide the facts, it's up to "us" to decide what to do with it.



[edit on 12/3/2006 by Infoholic]



posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 11:22 AM
link   
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.



posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 11:37 AM
link   

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.


I disagree that considering someone ignorant is a form of ignorance in itself.

There are facts out there. Indisputable facts. If those facts are provided, knowing for yourself those facts are actually fact (not opinion) and true, and you continue to believe otherwise for whatever reason... yes that would make you ignorant. Me calling you ignorant for not believing the truthful fact does not make me ignorant.

There are people out there that have been given the truth, backed up by fact, and they continue to believe (ignorantly) it's not possible or "it's not going to happen to me"... and yes those people are ignorant. Being ignorant is no reason for me to give up hope with them, though.



posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 11:45 AM
link   

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 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.



posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 01:28 PM
link   

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.

Then go find them. The only one to decide if the facts out there are "indisputable" would be yourself. No one can make that decision for you. You research for the truth, with facts, and make that decision.



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.

If the fact I base my opinion on were flawed, I wouldn't believe them. I will research them to the fullest extent possible. If there is a questionable margin, that would not make it "fact" in my opinion. Thus, not rendering my opinion ignorant.

You could call that an educated decision, but that would be semantics.

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.

[edit on 12/3/2006 by Infoholic]



posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Infoholic
Then go find them.


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.

..Tongue Twister.



Originally posted by Infoholic
If the fact I base my opinion on were flawed, I wouldn't believe them.


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.


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.


Well said.

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?

[edit on 3-12-2006 by chissler]



posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 03:40 PM
link   

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.

I did state there are indisputable facts, but never did I say which ones they were... hence, my next statement... "The only one to decide if the facts out there are "indisputable" would be yourself. No one can make that decision for you. You research for the truth, with facts, and make that decision."

I think we can both agree, that everyone can and probably will disagree. However, how can someone(s) disagree when a point is to be proven with no other way to construe it?

For example, Why is the sky blue? People can debate that all day long, but the end result would be that the sky "appears" blue due to the polarization of light. The ozone is filtering out all other colors of light, only allowing the blue color to show through. Now, we could have people arguing it's because of the smog, or global warming, or whatever hair brained idea they can come up with, because they feel that to be true. But physics, in this case, would prove otherwise... an indisputable fact.



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?


I believe I would go along with interaction as well. Believing in maturation or interaction doesn't appear to follow this topic/discussion. Regardless, neither would be wrong, if in fact they could "prove" their claims with fact.


I guess that leaves us in a dispute. I agree it would be naive to say we don't miss flaws. Depending on how badly you want to get to the bottom of a discussion, you keep digging, right? Otherwise, one of the two would simply give up and not actually prove a point with fact. But then the one that left the discussion would end up calling the other one "bullheaded".

In the case of facts contradicting themselves, I wouldn't buy that as being a definite answer. I would keep digging to find the answer, since after all, I am bullheaded.



posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Infoholic
However, how can someone(s) disagree when a point is to be proven with no other way to construe it?


...Wait for it... Wait for it... Due to their ignorance on the subject!

Finally, a definitive situation of Ignorance.



Thank you for your replies Infoholic, I've enjoyed them.



posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 04:24 PM
link   
Touche'



Originally posted by chissler
Thank you for your replies Infoholic, I've enjoyed them.


You are most welcome. And don't forget to tip your waitress, oh and try the veal... I'll be here all week.



posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 10:28 PM
link   
Some people seem to believe everything.

They hear a good story, such as "Mossad flew the planes into the Towers", and it tickles their minds. They like the story, it's fun thinking about it, and then.... it becomes the Truth.
Facts and Theories are levered into place. Arguments are created to fight the good fight. Away we go.

I've seen it alot in Religious people too. Happy to absorb beliefs from all over the place... East and West, Heaven and Reincarnation... it's all fascinating, the speaker sounds so Sincere and Wise, so it must be TRUE. Even if the jumble of ideas contradict themselves.

Not that it really matters. Humans are alot less Logical than we'd like to believe ourselves to be. Underneath our Rational Minds it's still 9/10ths Insane Jawbone Wielding Meat Eating Monkey. Just have to accept that.

Perhaps people just need to say more often "Hell, I don't know".

[edit on 4-12-2006 by emjoi]



posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 10:56 PM
link   

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?


I understand what you are saying, at least in part.

ignorance should not be an all encompassing label placed upon someone's whole mind or being. ignorance could just be a specific field of study that they are "ignorant" about, or a specific piece of information they simply where never introduced to.

ignorance does not always imply stupidity or a negative concept. sometimes it just means they did not know. not because they did not learn it, but because it was something they had never been exposed to, or a specific thing that no one has ever taught them.

to consider someone "ignorant" is to accept they fit a label. in this case when someone is called "ignorant" it means they do not know. if they do not know, and you simply call them "ignorant" in your mind and walk away, then you (not personally) are learning how to accept ignorance and not confront it. but, also, if someone is calling someone ignorant and leaving it at that, then no conserted effort was made to see what mental "blockade" was standing in the way of at permitting them to percieve a different point of view.

so, to simply call someone ignorant does not do anything constructive, unless action is taken on the part of the one who identified the ignorance, and after they identified the ignorance made a effort to find what the root cause was, and help them move it out of the way.



posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by chissler

But what if the facts you base your opinion on, are flawed?


But what if the opinion i have is the result of my opinion making up it's own opinion? then can the facts be trusted, since it was the opinion observing them?

I'd sell my soul to the whole of everything to get everyone to ask these same 2 questions, without regret.

we all learn through the process of the "law of association". so what was at the core of our opinion when we started it?

[edit on 4-12-2006 by Esoteric Teacher]



posted on Dec, 5 2006 @ 06:59 AM
link   
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]



posted on Dec, 7 2006 @ 09:29 PM
link   

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]


Here... taken from your source...


(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."

source

You need to read everything if you are going to use a specific source for a debate. Now, I have stated this from the very beginning...


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.


The "facts" (as we have debated) can go either way. I feel you are ignorant to say, or insinuate, "meaning #1" would apply to the description of the term "ignorant" as discussed in this thread.

But that's just my opinion.

I have never said that there was more, or less, to the definition, I was just simply pointing out the part that was most relevant to the discussion.





Have a great day.

[edit on 12/7/2006 by Infoholic]



posted on Dec, 7 2006 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Infoholic
I was just simply pointing out the part that was most relevant to the discussion.


Most relevant?

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?

Hrmm?





posted on Dec, 7 2006 @ 10:32 PM
link   
this in itself raises too many questions...
click here.

so the bible is wrong and evolution how they currently say it is wrong.. we really do know nothing. It's quite fascinating



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 08:22 AM
link   

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?


In all of our discussions, no one had debated the validity of your opinion. In this discussion thread, it has/was/is mentioned of how to "free the ignorant" of which the only way to "free" them is to tell them...

Determining someone to be ignorant, by definition, would be after you tell them the "truths", or not telling them anything to begin with...

Thus, being the relevant term usage, someone would be determined ignorant after being told.

So, to answer your quesiton, "Who is to determine....."

Common sense would determine which part is most relevant.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join