News: Agnotology: The study of ignorance

[Mike C.]

I came upon this article and found hope, seeing that others out there in the scientific community are realizing the effects of ignorance.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/24/opinion/the-case-for-teaching-ignorance.html?ref=opinion

 

Do you think that this will grow and help change the world?

[AccuTron]

Boy, I'd sure like it to catch on.  But gigantic money is made from ignorance.  Also, mainstream media will NEVER admit it is clueless.

[Magnetic Synthesizer]

I hope it will, and if it does, it will help change the world. Because agnosticism gives way to reason. Atleast such grounds (the critical acknowledgements of limitations) are the grounds on which reason can emerge victorious.

 

I also think Stefan Molyneux gives an unfair presentation of agnosticism, which is fine. I guess I am just bitter either because I once identified as one or because I didn't identify with any of the arguments presented ( so I dropped the presentation). Many rebutations are based on a level of precision of the vocabulary that many subjects don't take seriously enough. It is a precision that exceeds the one of everyday life where a lot of irrationality takes place which brings down the standards. I also wish Stefan was more available to explore other philosophies (systems of thought) when those give a visit. I'd rather prefer a comprehensive exploration of a reasoning I think is wrong than boring refutation.

Anyway, ironicly this theme is the least interesting to me here. So much truth-of and data on child abuse and an-cap, fill in the holes which where previously filled with unsatisfying data (still are).

 

When I found agnosticism it was one of the first positions which I was attracted to, except on the fact that you could know, you just can't make a non-refutable statement (unless you're right, in which case the empiricism needed to refute will never show).

 

I always saw the term skeptics as arrogant people analogous to convinced preachers of mythologies. They had critical thought, but they would not apply it fairly with impartiality. The liberal would be skeptical of conservatives but not skeptical of hsi own shit. Skepticism seemed to me like a catch word used by minds to hide their own fantazy (self-propaganda) and giving them the illusion that they were somehow different because they had critical thinking (which was only used to reinforce their beliefs, not discern the truth with impartial readiness)

[Magnetic Synthesizer]

Want to call in and tell Stefan where he's wrong re: agnosticism?

I would have if I wanted to. Don't have the ambition. Heres one of the few reasons. I'm not good enough . Prefer text because its not under time pressure.

Like, I don't even know where he found that ''social'' has the component ''consent'' to it. So Gov doesn't have a social function.

I can't argue with that, I don't expect him to accept a new definition of the word.

So I feel cut off from the dialogue, I'd be almost like watching the show without the thrill of being live.

Also, everytime, I remember how someguy (from the god that was and wasnt there) was cut from the show and I condemn that. Stefan could have (among many things) decided to work the definitions of the words. He didnt do that. Dictonaries are too vague. If I bring my own version of the language he's not going to compromise, or even try to work with my limitations. Its completely one-sided, and I don't like that. So I won't be calling to rebute anything he says anytime soon. If Stefan said that he didn't want to spend time doing that, I wouldn't perceive it as a hostile act.