Talk:Deliberate ignorance

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?"

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)