The nature of discource and argument Part3

On Ignorance. 

In the previous post of this series. I mentioned the appeal to ignorance.   I would like to expand on the following text from it,

-----Ignorance  (which is a lack of knowledge or information on a subject) and it's admission are important for truth seekers.  This appeal, dismisses ignorance as a credible state or uses it as a wedge.  The basic form is as follows;  "You can't prove bigfoot doesn't exist therefore bigfoot exists."   This is often an attempt to flip the burden of proof onto someone requesting evidence.-----

My reply to the appeal to ignorance goes something like this: Just because I admit that I don't know something does not mean that I accept that you do know, or that the subject is unknowable.  These are three distinct states of being the first two being completely independent of each other, and both being dependent on the last.  But I really want to talk about ignorance in a more general sense.


Ignorance, is not always a bad thing. Admitting that you don't know something is often the first step in discovering the truth about it.  However admitting you don't know something is also often viewed as admitting that you are stupid.   This may be some evolutionary holdover, that explains why we like clear spoken confidence in our leaders.  It does us a great disservice in the present age.  While being able to tell a log from an alligator and have no doubts was (and sometimes is) a most useful skill, navigating the complex informational word that we live in requires that we don't leap to conclusions, that we reserve judgment and maintain an open mind.

If you somehow doubt that this obstacle exists just freely admit your ignorance of it in the comments below; And email a link to everyone you know.  It is possible that you were able to do this (thanks for sharing my blog) but even if you did, chances are that you felt a momentary hesitation at the thought.  More likely you didn't.  It is uncomfortable to expose our ignorance to others. The greatest danger lies in avoiding this discomfort, and in denying our ignorance to ourselves.  

I am going to break down ignorance (again, lack of knowledge) into three categories:   Lack of information, Misinformed, Willful.

Lack of information is the normal state we have when approaching something. There are very few things that we really know anything about.  Being aware of this and how to find things out is nothing to be embarrassed or ashamed about. This is a good place to be, and a corner stone of evidence based reasoning

Misinformation is regrettable sometimes we simply believe the wrong things because we were taught them or told them.  This is often folk knowledge such as the Daddy Long Legs being the most poisonous spider, or the sun going around the earth.   And there are tools for discovering the truth.

Willful ignorance is best exemplified by the character of Steven Colbert,  This character is in fact a direct parody of that type of thinking. In cases other than comedy it is a serious matter. (non comedy is serious, seriously.)   In law the term is, at least according to wikipedia, called willful blindness.  The main idea presented is the ability to claim that you didn't know that you were doing anything illegal because you lacked certain information;  I mean you couldn't know that it was drugs or weapons in the package you were paid $30,000 to deliver, you never asked or looked inside.    This argument, as far as I know, has never worked for anyone ever.  



It seems then that the denial of our own ignorance is one of the greatest thinking mistakes we can make.   This is not to say that we should relegate ourselves to the idea that knowledge is unattainable, just that we need to consider and accept the limits of our understanding when we are trying to make decisions about something.  If possible we should gather enough information to make an informed choice, but if we can't we should limit the amount to which we commit ourselves to an idea.   With the rapid accumulation of information in a variety of fields we can't expect to know things and will have to rely on experts.   How we should deal with that to make sure we can determine if someone is an expert and not to rely on them as an authority (as in the appeal to authority).   Is something I will have to save for a future post.