Talk:Deliberate ignorance

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

I just wanted to say how happy I am that it is OK to post insults about active, helpful editors. It's the reason I edit here; they don't allow that kind of thing at Wikipedia. HelpJazz 18:12, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

HelpJazz, feigning "insult" is an example of liberal style. Relax. Also, there is no evidence that you are a "libertarian" and we've rejected self-labels here long ago.--Aschlafly 18:14, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

(unacceptable language deleted)

I've noticed that there are no citations for these examples of deliberate ignorance, also would it be possible for a sysop to create a category for cryptology realted articles MCollins 12:33, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

The "I've never heard that in the New York Times" is extremely biased, as the NYT is only read by 20 percent of the population (according to conservapedia). Why not change it to, "the news?"

Contents

Censorship Complaint

Not that I expect anything to change, but I have to protest ASchlafly's removal of my edit regarding Dick Cheney as "liberal claptrap". The topic is "Deliberate Ignorance", not "Liberal Deliberate Ignorance", and in the interest of balance it's appropriate to have cited examples that show the characteristic to be universal, and not just a liberal one. Cheney's insistence in 2005 that the Iraq insurgency was in its last throes was deliberately ignorant of the situation on the ground and the opinions of the military leaders whose observations are supposed to be given the most weight. Cheney had daily access to public and classified intelligence that warned of the trend towards destabilization (which eventually required the surge policy to reverse), so his statement was clearly a case of cognitive dissonance with regard the the facts at his disposal, or in this case, Deliberate Ignorance. I'm requesting an academic refutation of this view, and if non is received I'll restore the Cheney example. I cannot speak on behalf of the other deletions. --DinsdaleP 20:33, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Evolution of whales

It just isn't true to say that "evolutionists refuse to address the lack of a plausible evolutionary path for the whale...". See here, here, here and here for example. And there are many more where they came from. Evolutionists say that they already have a plausible evolutionary path for the whale so why would they be addressing the lack of such a path? Is there some self-evident reason that the suggested path is implausible in evolutionary terms? --CecilQ 16:47, 3 March 2011 (EST)

You hit the nail on the head: "Evolutionists say..." Yes, they "say." They "say" fish evolved into frogs, dinosaurs evolved into birds, apes evolved into scientists. They can "say" all they want, but saying it happened is far different from proving it happened. I can use that same argument - and with just as much authority - by saying a housefly evolved into a house, a horsefly evolved into a horse, or a stinkbug evolved into a Volkswagen Beetle. And just like the evolutionists, I'd have as my "proof" the flies, the house, the horse, and the bugs; I'd have that brilliant scenario to fit what's in between, and I'd have those papers published that compel the public to "accept" what was just explained here.
No, we're not going to accept the so-called "proofs" of whale origins, nor anything else related to evolution; it's just a tale, as per the first sentence of the first link you provided. Karajou 17:48, 3 March 2011 (EST)
Very well put, Karajou. The "theory of evolution" is a claim about a process, and like any other claim it should only be accepted if there is proof for it. Proof of a process requires evidence of a process. Relying on the beginning and end says little about what happened in between. In fact, physics teaches that viewing the beginning and end of work says almost nothing about the nature of the work that occurred in between.--Andy Schlafly 18:23, 3 March 2011 (EST)
I'm afraid Karajou's analogies are somewhat inadequate. The theory of evolution is a lot more specific than posing an argument that one thing transformed into another. In fact, the theory is less about the 'states' and more about the 'process'. The theory, whatever one may think of it, does put forward a biological mechanism which is plausible insofar as it is at least theoretically possible based upon our knowledge of DNA, reproduction etc. But the argument about 'proof' is also lacking. The aim is not and never has been to amass tonnes of evidence until we can reach some mythical point and declare 'evolution is fact'. Science is not built upon that notion; it is built upon the hypothetico-deductive method, as outlined by Karl Popper. The aim is to try and disprove the theory. My aim is simply to clear up the philosophical issues, not to come down on either side of the evolutionist -vs- intelligent design debate. Brit1909 18:32, 3 March 2011 (EST)
To disagree with you slightly, my analogy is completely adequate. What I have cited above is hearsay evidence, which is what the process of evolution is based on; what we have in the mainstream is an explanation of the process based on an interpretation of fossil evidence, and all based on nothing more than the word of the scientist. We have to accept his word that it happened in the way he described it. Unfortunately, the concept has gone beyond theory; there are too many scientists, professors, and teachers who demand we accept evolution not as a theory, but as an established fact. A frog evolving into a fish is just as much based on hearsay as a housefly evolving into a house. We recognize that evolution is simply a false theory; in fact, it violates every step of the scientific method as well as common sense. This site intends to explain it properly and tell it to the public. Karajou 18:49, 3 March 2011 (EST)
I am afraid that this discussion has wandered well away from the point that I was trying to make in the original post. I wasn't saying that evolution ought to be accepted. That surely is an argument for elsewhere. I was saying that in evolutionary terms there appears to be a plausible path for the whale. That being so, it makes no sense to talk about a failure to address the lack of a plausible evolutionary path. The reason they don't address it is because, within the terms of their theory, there is already an explanation. You might as well criticise evolutionary scientists for their failure to address the lack of a plausible path for mice, oxen, cockatoos, deer, slugs and fleas as much as whales on the basis that is being argued above. I suggest that the item be removed from the list. --CecilQ 20:26, 3 March 2011 (EST)
150 years after Darwin suggested that whales evolved from black bears swimming with their mouths open, I haven't seen a plausible, detailed explanation yet. Are you aware of a detailed explanation that addresses the substantive issues and unique characteristics of a whale?--Andy Schlafly 00:18, 4 March 2011 (EST)
Sorry for the delay in responding. Did you look at the links that I posted above? I don't for a moment suggest that your own ignorance of evolutionary biology is deliberate. But the editor who posted the whale reference should at least have taken a cursory look at the readily available material on the subject. To reiterate: I am not saying that the evolutionary position is true. I am saying that from an evolutionary point of view there is no lack of a plausible path any more than there is a lack of a plausible evolutionary path for any other creature. Accordingly I suggest that the item be removed from the list. --CecilQ 19:57, 8 March 2011 (EST)
I assume from the lack of response that no-one has any problem with me removing the item now. --CecilQ 19:28, 16 March 2011 (EDT)
Hi, please don't remove this item from the list. I think it is educational. The question of whale evolution is controversial, even among the evolutionists themselves. The point of the item is that this (possible) counterexample to evolution does not dissuade evolutionists from accepting the overall theory, even when it (possibly) contradicts fact. AddisonDM 20:09, 16 March 2011 (EDT)
My understanding (after reading the article and conversation here) is that the evolution of the whale, while there is a solution that has been tabled, has no plausible explanation and that the scientists refuse to accept that. MaxFletcher 21:04, 16 March 2011 (EDT)
The difficulty that I was trying to point out is that the evolution of the whale, as it is currently explained by evolutionary scientists, is no more or less plausible than the evolution of any other creature. It cannot, therefore, be an example of deliberate ignorance any more than, for example, a belief in evolution generally is an example of deliberate ignorance. I don't know if I can express it in clearer terms than that. --CecilQ 17:57, 21 March 2011 (EDT)
The whale, a mammal, has many extraordinary characteristics that are not found in any other creatures. Darwin recognized this as a serious problem, and suggested that whales evolved from black bears swimming. No more plausible ancestor has been suggested ever since. It is a counterexample to the theory of evolution.--Andy Schlafly 00:12, 22 March 2011 (EDT)
You didn't look at any of those links that I provided at the top of the thread, did you? --CecilQ 01:09, 22 March 2011 (EDT)
I looked at those links, and again it's evolutionists saying it happened; they're not proving it happened. That is a situation that you, CecilQ, are choosing to ignore completely. Karajou 01:28, 22 March 2011 (EDT)
I looked at those links also. The first one called it an "unfinished story," the second one is a link to Wikipedia, the third is a YouTube video, and so on. Those links are a far cry from openminded, rigorous science.--Andy Schlafly 11:56, 22 March 2011 (EDT)
@Karajou: I say again: I am not saying that evolution ought to be accepted. This thread is about a specific alleged example of deliberate ignorance. I am trying to elicit exactly what it is about this particular example that smacks of deliberate ignorance.
@Aschafly: If you had read the links when you posted your comment of 22 March then I cannot understand how you could have written: "Darwin recognized this as a serious problem, and suggested that whales evolved from black bears swimming. No more plausible ancestor has been suggested ever since". In all seriousness, are you suggesting that the black bear theory is the most plausible theory yet? Clearly, looking at those links, a number of fossils have been discovered since Darwin's time and a far more detailed and, on its face, far more plausible evolutionary path has been suggested. And isn't the fact that some evolutionists refer to it as an "unfinished story" indicative of open enquiring minds rather than deliberate ignorance? Working from within the evolutionary paradigm, just what is it about the proposed evolutionary path that is indicative of deliberate ignorance. I think it would be appropriate at this stage if you could provide specific details. --CecilQ 17:52, 22 March 2011 (EDT)
Darwin said black bears; then it changed to "dog-like" carnivores [1]; now the latest scenario (read "excuse") is deer [2]. Bambi meets Flipper? In this particular evo-story - and all of evolution in general - these "educated" men will come with any excuse, any scenario, any situation...anything under the sun, except Genesis, Chapter 1. They cannot tolerate the fact that there is a God who created everything. Karajou 19:36, 22 March 2011 (EDT)

Hmm... I think you'll find that the "dog-like" creatures and the "deer-like" creatures both exist in the current proposed evolutionary pathway. Pakicetus is described in your first article as having "dog-like legs" and Indohyus is described in your second article as being "deer-like". According to current evolutionary theory they are both related to whales (edit - although, in the case of Indohyus the relationship appears less certain). It is not as if there has been a movement from bears to dogs to deer (which appears to be what you are suggesting in your post). Rather, it is as I have described it above: "a number of fossils have been discovered since Darwin's time and a far more detailed and, on its face, far more plausible evolutionary path has been suggested".

Now, both you and I know that the Bible is 100% true and correct and that Jesus is our personal Lord and Saviour. We also agree that evolution cannot possibly be right and that the Great Flood definitely definitely happened. However, this is an article on deliberate ignorance. The mere fact that we do not agree with someone's point of view does not mean that they are being deliberately ignorant. People can legitimately hold opposing views without deliberate ignorance being the necessary cause. For this whale item to be included in this article there really needs to be a more considered criticism than "Bambi meets Flipper". Can you point to any reference that indicates that deliberate ignorance is at work in relation to the suggested evolutionary pathway for whales? --CecilQ 00:51, 23 March 2011 (EDT)

Cecil, the suggested evolutionary pathways ignore many unique features and characteristics of whales. Darwin lacked a plausible explanation because there is none within his theory. Rather than address this, evolutionists ignore it.--Andy Schlafly 01:05, 23 March 2011 (EDT)
Specifically what unique features and characteristics? Exactly what are they ignoring? And why do you say they are acting with deliberate ignorance? --CecilQ 18:01, 23 March 2011 (EDT)

Application To Delete the Entire Article

I think this entire article needs to be removed completely. It has no academic or intellectual value and is clearly put on the site for the purpose of targeting a specific group of people. It has almost no sources and gives no information. It does not belong on an ostensibly objective encyclopedia. --HarabecW 21:40, 17 May 2011 (EDT)

It has value and does provide information. Deliberate ignorance is something that could even be studied.--Andy Schlafly 00:36, 18 May 2011 (EDT)
All this article does is call people the author doesnt like names. I suspect if I started posting other examples of deliberate ignorance, I'd get in trouble unless they were of people the author disliked. --HarabecW 00:40, 18 May 2011 (EDT)

Hypocrisy

This article is hypocritical. "Believing that only one ideology could ever make mistakes; constantly demonizing that ideology while ignoring the faults of one's own..." What if the "one ideology" that "could ever make mistakes" is liberalism? This seems to be the overall perspective of Conservapedia; is Conservapedia guilty of deliberate ignorance? --X. Dulks

Un-American content

I feel that this should be edited:

"atheists refuse to acknowledge a priori philosophical proofs of the existence of God, and specifically the Christian god, ..."

It seems to indicate that there really are other gods than the American God of The Bible. I find this unacceptable even in this 'negative' context, where the existence of God is being denied by the wretched atheists. I suggest removing "and specifically the Christian god".

Common expressions of deliberate ignorance include...

I find the section past the "Common expressions of deliberate ignorance include" to be very lacking. Only one example is cited, so basically it's just a list of things that we think some liberals probably said at some point in time. As such, it is not really based on fact, but only on what we presume to be true. I find this to be dangerous and quite in-step with how some liberals behave in regard to conservatives, i.e. "I'm pretty sure I saw a Tea Partyer say something racist at some point, so I'm sure the Tea Party is racist" type of thinking. As such, I'm deleting the section and rewording the one quote that was sourced. If anyone objects, please feel free to revert, but I hope that if you do, you manage to find some sources to back up at least some of the claims listed. --StoryMaker 21:30, 24 August 2011 (EDT)

I don't think it should be deleted without first gaining some sort of consensus/discussion. MaxFletcher 21:34, 24 August 2011 (EDT)
Oh. Well, I already deleted it, heh heh...if you think there's more to be discussed, go ahead and revert. --StoryMaker 21:40, 24 August 2011 (EDT)
I did revert it but check again in a day or so and if no one has commented I suppose you can delete the section again. MaxFletcher 21:41, 24 August 2011 (EDT)
I'm sure citations could be found easily.--Andy Schlafly 23:25, 24 August 2011 (EDT)
Personal tools