21 replies to this topic

[Lychees]

Sometimes, the lack of knowledge displayed by people can be disheartening—especially when often the information they need is right in front of their eyes. Lately I've been pondering this thought: just when is ignorance excusable? Can ignorance always be a valid excuse, so long as you're truly adamant about not knowing? Is ignorance only acceptable in regards to casual or minor events, things, ideas, etc? Or is ignorance never excusable at all?

Personally, I believe the issue on ignorance can't necessarily be limited to extremes of black and white—though I'll admit to leaning a bit more towards ignorance generally not being excusable. Considering we live in a golden age where information on virtually every topic is available at the whims of our fingertips through means of the internet, books, newspapers, or other forms of media, lack of knowledge on some topics is just due to pure laziness or unwillingness to learn, rather than being unable to actually learn.

This I consider to be especially true when people start claiming ignorance on situations involving the law and such. As a resident and citizen of your country, it's your responsibility to be aware of how the rules and laws of society work, how the government runs, and what is expected out of you as a citizen. I also feel people shouldn't be limited by their religious beliefs. People should willingly question and research things before forming opinions and viewpoints; religion shouldn't prevent you from discovering the truth on certain issues. Ignorance is excusable to me mainly if one truly has no means of finding out said information—like for example, how in some places media is limited due to poverty or corrupt government, or if the information is just unclear in general—or if the case is so minor that no one is really being hurt anyways, such as not knowing someone's birthday.

TL;DR, I believe if the information is widely available, laziness or unwillingness is the only thing keeping you from being well informed.

I'd like to know now what you think about claiming ignorance, and when do you believe it is or isn't okay to do so?

Edit: Removed last question as it wasn't quite relevant, and edited my last paragraph to sound a bit less harsh. I don't have any problems with religion, I just think knowledge is a good thing and people should always be willing to learn more. :>

Edited by Bad Lobotomy, 22 October 2009 - 05:09 AM.

[Agro]

I generally believe that ignorance is inexcusable. A certain christfag not knowing what a handjob is, for instance; if he's ignorant, fair enough. It's not really his fault that he's brought up in a community that doesn't discuss these sorts of things. However, if someone has a source of easily-accessible information at the tips of their fingers, then it becomes inexcusable.

There's other things, as well - sometimes it's okay to do certain acts in one country whereas in another it isn't. Like if a girl wore short-shorts in a Muslim community and truly did not know that her clothing was offensive, then it may be forgivable, although again it would really depend on whether it was due to laziness or not.

[Generic Operator]

My opinion is the same as Wander's.

when you stated causal or minor events what do you mean by those? (like events that are happening in a state or country, or trends?)

Edited by Generic Officer, 17 October 2009 - 11:21 PM.

[Lychees]

when you stated causal or minor events what do you mean by those? (like events that are happening in a state or country, or trends?)

Something like that. Or just things happening in general that aren't really that big of a deal on the spectrum of things.

[Generic Operator]

when you stated causal or minor events what do you mean by those? (like events that are happening in a state or country, or trends?)

Something like that. Or just things happening in general that aren't really that big of a deal on the spectrum of things.

Oh those, then I think ignorance will be acceptable as a defense considering it isn't important to know.

If it's something important and the information is easy to find then ignorance isn't acceptable. (as you stated like the laws and such.)

Edited by Generic Officer, 17 October 2009 - 11:32 PM.

[6669`]

When can ignorance be considered as a valid defense?

Never. If someone is trying to have a real conversation and doesn't bother to know what they are talking about, they don't deserve the right to communicate with other sentient beings.

[Esau of Isaac]

Partial ignorance can be a defensible position at times, at least through emotion, but it will never work in a valid debate. Ignorance of a subject can be easily explainable, and fair, but in a situation where the individual took the position of one who knows what they are speaking of when they do not there's no way to justify a less than warm welcome.

Slightly related bonus question: how do you feel about claiming insanity as a defense?

How is this particularly relevant to the rest of what you are speaking?

[Crystal Shards]

I think there's a difference between ignorance and simply not knowing something. Ignorance implies a sort of laziness or apathy to it; for example, the information is out there and easily accessible but the person does not seek it. Ignorance is unacceptable to me.

As for not knowing something, if you are new to a particular subject or are smart enough to realize you can't simply know every single thing about said subject, then not knowing something is easy to admit and acceptable. Again, you are showing a willingness to learn and an open mind.

In regards for the law, if you're doing anything you think might be illegal, the information is out there. Go find it.

[Phoenix Wright]

Ignorance is acceptable in my eyes. I mean, it's fine sometimes, but it'll get annoying to other people after a while. Let's face it: no one person can know everything there is to know, so why blame them for not being informed on a certain subject? I think it's a good idea to know a little bit about a lot of stuff, but in the end, that may be too much for a general population to handle.

To never know what you're talking about is unacceptable though, without a doubt.

Edited by Ben Stein, 18 October 2009 - 10:42 PM.

[Crystal Shards]

Ignorance is acceptable in my eyes. As long as you know what you're talking about, anyway.

What?

[Phoenix Wright]

Ignorance is acceptable in my eyes. As long as you know what you're talking about, anyway.

What?

Er...sorry about that. I edited. Still not a very good explanation of how I feel, though. I can't seem to think of a good way to state what I'm trying to say for some reason.

Maybe it's because this is a really dumb opinion of mine.

Edited by Ben Stein, 18 October 2009 - 10:42 PM.

[Hero]

As long as they are clear, I don't think there's any excuse for ignorance of legal or other formal responsibilities. It's one thing to forget to return a phone call, and quite another to not understand roadside signs while driving. The rules of almost every society in the world are available at least to their members, and are possible to learn and obey.

Ignorance in general is not a bad thing, though I think that full understanding is better in most cases. Everyone has certain things they don't want to know anything more about, and this is alright if they don't need to know those things.

The only time I have trouble with ignorant people is when they refuse to admit ignorance, putting fantasy in the place of knowledge. Spreading false information is inexcusable, it can only create trouble and its impact grows worse with every additional person it reaches.

I think there's a difference between ignorance and simply not knowing something. Ignorance implies a sort of laziness or apathy to it; for example, the information is out there and easily accessible but the person does not seek it. Ignorance is unacceptable to me.

As for not knowing something, if you are new to a particular subject or are smart enough to realize you can't simply know every single thing about said subject, then not knowing something is easy to admit and acceptable. Again, you are showing a willingness to learn and an open mind.

In regards for the law, if you're doing anything you think might be illegal, the information is out there. Go find it.

In your eyes, what's the difference between ignorance and "not knowing something"? What I got from your post is that it's subjective, but I'm sure you didn't mean that.

[Esau of Isaac]

As long as they are clear, I don't think there's any excuse for ignorance of legal or other formal responsibilities. It's one thing to forget to return a phone call, and quite another to not understand roadside signs while driving. The rules of almost every society in the world are available at least to their members, and are possible to learn and obey.

Ignorance in general is not a bad thing, though I think that full understanding is better in most cases. Everyone has certain things they don't want to know anything more about, and this is alright if they don't need to know those things.

The only time I have trouble with ignorant people is when they refuse to admit ignorance, putting fantasy in the place of knowledge. Spreading false information is inexcusable, it can only create trouble and its impact grows worse with every additional person it reaches.

I think there's a difference between ignorance and simply not knowing something. Ignorance implies a sort of laziness or apathy to it; for example, the information is out there and easily accessible but the person does not seek it. Ignorance is unacceptable to me.

As for not knowing something, if you are new to a particular subject or are smart enough to realize you can't simply know every single thing about said subject, then not knowing something is easy to admit and acceptable. Again, you are showing a willingness to learn and an open mind.

In regards for the law, if you're doing anything you think might be illegal, the information is out there. Go find it.

In your eyes, what's the difference between ignorance and "not knowing something"? What I got from your post is that it's subjective, but I'm sure you didn't mean that.

I believe she's referring to the connotations of the word's use; in daily conversation, "ignorant" does tend to be a negative manner by which to refer to something. It doesn't carry an explicit suggestion of laziness, but I think I can see where she's coming from when she states that there is a subtle implying of it. "You're ignorant" does sound much more scathing and accusing than "You do not know what you're talking about".

[Crystal Shards]

What I am referring to is an unwillingness to acquire knowledge and refusal acknowledge a deficiency in knowledge as opposed to simply having a lack of knowledge. To lack knowledge in an of itself, I do not find ignorant. To lack knowledge, know you lack knowledge, and still fall behind the old, "Well that's just what I believe," bullshit, that is ignorant. There isn't really much that's subjective about that.

[SeverIan]

What I am referring to is an unwillingness to acquire knowledge and refusal acknowledge a deficiency in knowledge as opposed to simply having a lack of knowledge. To lack knowledge in an of itself, I do not find ignorant. To lack knowledge, know you lack knowledge, and still fall behind the old, "Well that's just what I believe," bullshit, that is ignorant. There isn't really much that's subjective about that.

I understand that you find the former (unwillingness to learn) to be an undesirable trait, relatively unacceptable to the latter trait (lack of knowledge without unwillingness to learn). However, your terming the former "ignorant" and the latter "lack of knowledge" is very subjective, since ignorance does not - in any standard source of information on the definition of words I am aware of - imply even an awareness of one's own lack of knowledge, let alone an unwillingness to change that lack of knowledge. (i.e. someone can be ignorant of their ignorance). What I am trying to say is, you seem to have added on particular attributes to "ignorance", distinguishing it from a lack of knowledge, without any real basis for doing so besides a belief that "ignorance" is bad.

Dictionary.com:

1. lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned: an ignorant man. 2. lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact: ignorant of quantum physics. 3. uninformed; unaware. 4. due to or showing lack of knowledge or training: an ignorant statement.

OED:

1. a. The fact or condition of being ignorant; want of knowledge (general or special).
...
3. (In full the time or days of ignorance; tr. Arab. jhilyah state of ignorance, f. jhil ignorant.) The period of Arabian history previous to the teaching of Muhammad.

The third definition is particularly enlightening; the idea that people can be ignorant of something prior to its existence shows that ignorance does not require an unwillingness to learn - if it did, they would not be ignorant. How could people be unwilling to learn from teachings that don't yet exist?

Edited by SeverIan, 21 October 2009 - 06:38 PM.

[Fruitloop Multipuck]

This I consider to be especially true when people start claiming ignorance on situations involving the law and such. As a resident and citizen of your country, it's your responsibility to be aware of how the rules and laws of society work, how the government runs, and what is expected out of you as a citizen.

Are you aware of the massive amount of laws that remotely affect at least some small part of your life? No, of course not, nobody is, especially not anyone in this convo. There are simply too many laws and too many that are too long or complex for anyone to reasonably know all of those laws that pertain to them. For that matter, you would also likely have to know a huge amount of laws that don't have anything to do with you to you in order to even know that they don't affect you. Therefore, everyone in this convo is ignorant because we are unaware of all these laws. We are also potentially lawbreakers. None of us even know what all of the relevant laws are, so how do any of us know we aren't lawbreakers? After all, this is the age of the internet! What's your excuse for not using all of your free time to read and study thousand of laws you could be breaking without even realizing? Of course, that still wouldn't be enough to learn them all, but none of you are even applying the effort!

Edited by Destiny Puck, 21 October 2009 - 08:45 PM.

[Meteor]

Ignorance is a perfectly fine as an excuse, but never a defense. I'm pretty unsure how there could be multiple opinions on this.

For example, if you skip a class and miss a professor giving out a homework assignment, you'll have a pretty good reason not to turn it in, but you shouldn't expect a passing grade. If you don't know the speed limit, you're still going to get a ticket if you're caught going 15mph over. If you don't know putting your palm on a hot stovetop is dangerous, you'll still have to pay the medical bill.

[Crystal Shards]

What I am referring to is an unwillingness to acquire knowledge and refusal acknowledge a deficiency in knowledge as opposed to simply having a lack of knowledge. To lack knowledge in an of itself, I do not find ignorant. To lack knowledge, know you lack knowledge, and still fall behind the old, "Well that's just what I believe," bullshit, that is ignorant. There isn't really much that's subjective about that.

I understand that you find the former (unwillingness to learn) to be an undesirable trait, relatively unacceptable to the latter trait (lack of knowledge without unwillingness to learn). However, your terming the former "ignorant" and the latter "lack of knowledge" is very subjective, since ignorance does not - in any standard source of information on the definition of words I am aware of - imply even an awareness of one's own lack of knowledge, let alone an unwillingness to change that lack of knowledge. (i.e. someone can be ignorant of their ignorance). What I am trying to say is, you seem to have added on particular attributes to "ignorance", distinguishing it from a lack of knowledge, without any real basis for doing so besides a belief that "ignorance" is bad.

Do you have somewhere you're going with this? Because I'm not really sure I get your point. No one here said definitions were confined to that of the dictionary; if that were the case there wouldn't be much of a discussion. And I have a real basis for making the distinction that I do. Just because you don't see them doesn't mean they don't exist. I'm a rather deliberate person, so I make sure to know what I'm talking about.

Edited by Crystal Shards, 22 October 2009 - 09:36 AM.

[kirsche]

It depends a lot. Like, if someone is told something, and believes it to be true, there's no real need to look up more information about it and then you're ignorance is excusable. However, if you just make something up of the top of your head, claim it's true and not look into it, that's inexcusable.

Also, if something is subject to a different interpretation and the author meant only one thing, then getting the "wrong" argument (which is the view that differs from the authors) is excusable as the person could have merely read the text and believed it to be the "wrong" thing without knowing about the author's opinion on the matter. Obviously, it would be very silly to frown upon this.

Edited by kirsche, 22 October 2009 - 11:31 AM.

[Fruitloop Multipuck]

Ignorance is a perfectly fine as an excuse, but never a defense. I'm pretty unsure how there could be multiple opinions on this.

For example, if you skip a class and miss a professor giving out a homework assignment, you'll have a pretty good reason not to turn it in, but you shouldn't expect a passing grade. If you don't know the speed limit, you're still going to get a ticket if you're caught going 15mph over. If you don't know putting your palm on a hot stovetop is dangerous, you'll still have to pay the medical bill.

These are only the more obvious things one should make an effort to not be ignorant of, though. One can not possibly know everything, so ignorance must therefore necessarily be a defense because it is impossible to not be ignorant.