¿see blogs4brownback¿ ¿creation museum¿ the list goeth on and on ...
Please excuse my error, Radioactive afikomen. The offending sentence was the result of my attempt to organise the article clearly without removing anything. I can see that the original meaning of that part became slightly distorted. Thank you. Dark Matter Glaucopis 15:41, 6 March 2008 (EST)
- No worries. : ) -- Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 15:43, 6 March 2008 (EST)
I reckon that this is just another name for confirmation bias - which I've just referenced in the article. Do we want to be all psychological and trendy and turn it into a redirect or do we want to be cool and "plain language" and leave them as separate articles? Or am I wrong and are they different things?--BobSpring is sprung! 18:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Nonsense. Ignorance ≠ being unaware!
Ignorance stems from the word “ignore”. And ignoring something, is when it is noticed by your senses, but you act as if it isn’t. Hence “ignorance” is the act of ignoring something that you are aware of.
Simply being unaware of it on the other hand is when you can’t know, since it was never detected by your senses. So it is something completely different and the only purpose of acting like those two things are the same, is to justify the concept of the term “willful ignorance” being something different than just “ignorance”. Which it isn’t. (Give me an example of unwillful ignorance, please. Meaning: A case where the person is mentally aware of it, but his brain doesn’t make the choice of ignoring it. I don’t think that’s physically possible.)
Sad, how even the article about willful ignorance employs willful ignorance itself…
— 188.8.131.52 (talk) 19:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
- Ignorance just means you don't know something; it has no further definition of why you don't know it. Ignoring the knowledge would be one way, or just being unaware would be another. I think you're stretching the "ignore" comparison a little too much. They share a common root, but "ignorance" is not derived from "ignore". (ʞlɐʇ) ɹǝɯɯɐHʍoƆ 20:07, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Another term used is tactical stupidity. This differs from the "confirmation bias" mentioned in that ones job, livelihood, position, status, or other aspects are predicated on beliefs. E.g., Al Gore's observation in An Inconvenient Truth that "It's hard to understand something when your paycheck depends on your not understanding it." Also actions by:
- The lead paint industry against health effects, especially brain damage in children.
- The tobacco industry against health effects of tobacco.
- The automobile industry against safety features in cars -- seat belts, head restraints, steering columns and wheels, dashboards, airbags.
- The chemical industry against clean air and water laws.
- The oil and coal industry against global warming.
- Insurance and health care providers against universal / single payor coverage.
- The Tea Party, GOP, and Libertarians against rational and fact-based dicussion generally.
- Redirects are done like so: #REDIRECT[[Willful ignorance]]. Aboriginal Noise What the hell is that thing? 18:23, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Another BoN who goes around talk pages trying to be witty
The difference between 'willful ignorance' and 'deliberate stupidity' - not reading the Underground map; and waiting until you get to Uxbridge on the Piccadilly Line before you realize you are not going to Heathrow Airport. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 17:32, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
- To whoever changed my heading - there is a difference between the two terms - and 'Trying to be witty' is their direct inverse.
Google search results
- One might even say, you don't mind staying willfully ignorant of Google search rankings? Thanks for letting us know, anyway! Impetus to improve the article, methinks. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Willful ignorance and free will?
The way this entry is currently written apparently suggests that “willfully ignorant people” did choose some alternative while they could have done otherwise. Would it be possible to reformulate it so that it appears as neutral relatively to the existence of free will? — Unsigned, by: Gquenot / talk / contribs
- On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you.
- For one example of belief in free will as a direct result of the willful ignorance of science, see our article on WLC. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:48, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
- Noted for point 1.
- Regarding point 2: Thanks for the link. This is indeed a relation between free will and willful ignorance but this is not at all the one I was thinking of. I tried to make the question concise but maybe this made it unclear. The link I was thinking of is even more direct, it is related to how literally “will” should be understood in “willful ignorance” and especially if this kind of will can be understood as “free” in the “free will” sense. Though this is not explicitly written, stating that willful ignorance is intentional suggests that the willfully ignorant person could have considered such or such evidence but chose not to. This can appear as supporting the existence of free will. Maybe this is not a problem but I was wondering whether a neutral (relatively to the existence of free will) formulation would be possible and preferable.Gquenot (talk) 07:02, 18 August 2017 (UTC)