Lying vs. Being Ignorant

[Laika]

And there is a difference between being stupid and being ignorant. You may have been ignorant on a matter, but I doubt if you're stupid. After all, like me you are here contributing on RF. That makes us smart, Right? Right?

In practice, it has

Spoiler: the same effect....

 

[PureX]

Who or what determines whether or not one has the responsibility to find out the truth?

The effect their neglect will have on others.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have avoided calling anyone a liar for some time here and have come to agree that even branding an obviously false statement as a "lie" is not the best policy either. I agree that lying is deceiving with intent. And one even needs to be careful with phrases such as "You are lying to yourself."

Who or what determines whether or not one has the responsibility to find out the truth?

if one's claims could affect others then one takes on that responsibility.

 

[Revoltingest]

There's also an important distinction to make between ignorance and willful ignorance.

I've been on the receiving end of such accusations here on RF.
I've discerned what the terms mean.....
Ignorance - When I disagree with people who have The Truth.
Wilful ignorance - When I still disagree, even after they've told me
The Truth, as supported by their opinions & unconvincing rationale.

I know it isn't always that way.
But The kind of people who use those terms with
hostility are the ones who tend to speak that way.

 

[SalixIncendium]

The effect their neglect will have on others.

Perhaps to a point, but people have to take responsibility for themselves, as they will face ignorance, whether willful or not, throughout their lives.

I was raised in a household that had every bit as much ignorance as the next as had every bit as much excuse as the next person to remain in ignorance. But I took it upon myself to look with skepticism on what I was being spoon-fed and educate myself with what I felt I needed to know.

It wasn't because I had a responsibility for others; I had a responsibility to myself.

As I see it, everyone is at a different level in their progression of being. Some will choose to learn and progress; some will choose to remain stagnant, content with what they currently know; to stay in their comfort zone, so to speak. I see nothing inherently wrong with either. Some people are ready for certain knowledge; some are not.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Who or what determines whether or not one has the responsibility to find out the truth?

I think that any time you are making a truth assertion, it is up to you to make sure that it is actually true. If, for example, someone were to make a claim to me about something someone is supposed to have said or done, and I pass that along without first verifying the truth of it, then I'm guilty of passing on an untruth - a lie. Because I know for a certainty that any such information has the potential to be false.

 

[Heyo]

This is true. But I see willful ignorance as a product of self-deceit. Therefore the intention to deceive, as mentioned in the OP, is present.

Willful ignorance (or more commonly known in legal circles and willful blindness) isn't the kind of ignorance I'm discussing in the OP.

Let's take a typical example. A YEC states that the age of the earth is 6000 years. I tell him that the earth is 4.53 billion years old.
Is he lying when he states the earth to be 6000 years old the next time?
Now I explain to him why the earth is 4.53 billion years old.
Is he lying when he states the earth to be 6000 years old the next time?
Now I explain to him why the earth is 4.53 billion years old and make sure he understands the explanation.
Is he lying when he states the earth to be 6000 years old the next time?
When becomes ignorance willful ignorance and when becomes willful ignorance deceit?

 

[PureX]

Perhaps to a point, but people have to take responsibility for themselves, as they will face ignorance, whether willful or not, throughout their lives.

So, when George Bush ignored those in his own administration that told him the claim of Saddam's EMDs was sketchy because he WANTED to believe it was true, it was OUR responsibility to somehow determine the accuracy of these charges, because we should expect our presidents to lie to us? Is this the point you're trying to make, here?

I was raised in a household that had every bit as much ignorance as the next as had every bit as much excuse as the next person to remain in ignorance. But I took it upon myself to look with skepticism on what I was being spoon-fed and educate myself with what I felt I needed to know.

I am pretty sure this has not rendered you immune to the deliberate deceptions of others, however. Nor could it.

It wasn't because I had a responsibility for others; I had a responsibility to myself.

It's not an issue of responsibility, it's an issue of inability. Every legislator that went along with the Bush-Cheney lies about Saddam's WMDs should have been purged from office because they had both the ability and the responsibility to find out if these claims were true, or not, and they didn't bother. The public however, didn't really have that ability, as they didn't have access to any of the pertinent information.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I've seen many accused of lying by others, when, in actually, they are more accurately simply ignorant to the truth.

As I see it, there is a well defined distinction between lying and being ignorant.

For someone to lie, they must know the truth and have a premeditated intent to deceive the subject from that truth. On the other hand, someone who is ignorant to the truth can tell a mistruth, but since they believe their mistruth is, in fact, the truth in their mind, there is no intent to deceive, and therefore, no lie.

Agree? Disagree? Why?

To complicate things: even if a person isn't lying themselves they make a false statement, if they're repeating someone else's wilful lie, then their statement is still a lie even if they themselves aren't lying per se (since they sincerely believe the statement to be true).

 

[SalixIncendium]

So, when George Bush ignored those in his own administration that told him the claim of Saddam's EMDs was sketchy because he WANTED to believe it was true, it was OUR responsibility to somehow determine the accuracy of these charges, because we should expect our presidents to lie to us? Is this the point you're trying to make, here?

I think only a fool looks at what a politician tells them without a degree of skepticism.

I am pretty sure this has not rendered you immune to the deliberate deceptions of others, however. Nor could it.

I did not state or imply that it did. Not even sure why you're saying this.

It's not an issue of responsibility, it's an issue of inability. Every legislator that went along with the Bush-Cheney lies about Saddam's WMDs should have been purged from office because they had both the ability and the responsibility to find out if these claims were true, or not, and they didn't bother. The public however, didn't really have that ability, as they didn't have access to any of the pertinent information.

Fair enough. That's way I prefaced my response to you with "Perhaps to a point." Perhaps in your haste to promote your political agenda against Desert Storm, you missed that.

 

[SalixIncendium]

To complicate things: even if a person isn't lying themselves they make a false statement, if they're repeating someone else's wilful lie, then their statement is still a lie even if they themselves aren't lying per se (since they sincerely believe the statement to be true).

So is unwittingly passing along a lie considered lying? Is the person lying when there is no intent to deceive?

 

[Heyo]

So is unwittingly passing along a lie considered lying? Is the person lying when there is no intent to deceive?

You didn't carefully read 9-10ths_Penguin's post. He said that it isn't lying (by the person repeating he statement) but the statement itself is still a lie.

 

[SalixIncendium]

You didn't carefully read 9-10ths_Penguin's post. He said that it isn't lying (by the person repeating he statement) but the statement itself is still a lie.

Actually I did. I read it so carefully, in fact, that I caught the "per se" which led me to ask for less qualified response.

 

[Vinayaka]

Actually I did. I read it so carefully, in fact, that I caught the "per se" which led me to ask for less qualified response.

You're lying, you %$#@(& liar, you. (Sorry, I couldn't resist.) Delete this if you wish.

In all seriousness, there is another aspect, and that is why do people choose to throw the liar accusation around as freely as they do? How will that contribute to any worthwhile discussion?

 

[SalixIncendium]

In all seriousness, there is another aspect, and that is why do people choose to throw the liar accusation around as freely as they do? How will that contribute to any worthwhile discussion?

It doesn't, quite simply. It's nothing more than an ad hominem attack. People grow frustrated when they cannot make another see something from their perspective, so rather than presenting evidence to prove their argument correct or to prove another's argument invalid, out of this frustration, they simply attack their character.

 

[Vinayaka]

It doesn't, quite simply. It's nothing more than an ad hominem attack. People grow frustrated when they cannot make another see something from their perspective, so rather than presenting evidence to prove their argument correct or to prove another's argument invalid, out of this frustration, they simply attack their character.

So many times you just see two folks saying the same thing ..
"You're the liar!"
"No you're the liar!"

or the oft used 'I'm right and you're wrong."

As a non participant neutral observer, actually I find it kind of funny. An oddity in the range of human behaviour.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So is unwittingly passing along a lie considered lying? Is the person lying when there is no intent to deceive?

It is sometimes hard to see how someone does not realize that he is lying. But even if a person is lying, and many probably are, it does not foster a healthy debate to use that term so I can see why one should avoid it. For example I do not see how Ray Comfort cannot know that he is lying. He uses dishonest editing techniques to get people to say what he wants them to say. Kent Hovind on the other hand is so severely delusional that he may not realize that he is repeating falsehoods even when he makes them up. He spend ten years in prison due to his own delusions. Now that is commitment.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So is unwittingly passing along a lie considered lying?

This is kinda semantic hair-splitting, but the way I understand the terms, that person wouldn't be lying, but would be telling a lie.

Is the person lying when there is no intent to deceive?

Just because the person does not believe the statement to be false does not necessarily imply "no intent to deceive."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It doesn't, quite simply. It's nothing more than an ad hominem attack.

Calling someone a liar isn't an ad hominem. It would only be an ad hominem if it was something like "you're a liar... and that's why what you're saying now is false."

Even something like "you're a liar, so I don't trust that what you're saying is true" doesn't necessarily have any logical issues with it.

Calling someone a liar is a claim. It's certainly a claim that's often emotionally charged; it's kinda a rhetorical sledgehammer that isn't appropriate most of the time, but can be effective when it's used appropriately.

People grow frustrated when they cannot make another see something from their perspective, so rather than presenting evidence to prove their argument correct or to prove another's argument invalid, out of this frustration, they simply attack their character.

Ironically, this is more of an ad hominem than calming someone a liar.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Calling someone a liar isn't an ad hominem. It would only be an ad hominem if it was something like "you're a liar... and that's why what you're saying now is false."

Even something like "you're a liar, so I don't trust that what you're saying is true" doesn't necessarily have any logical issues with it.

Calling someone a liar is a claim. It's certainly a claim that's often emotionally charged; it's kinda a rhetorical sledgehammer that isn't appropriate most of the time, but can be effective when it's used appropriately.

Calling someone a liar is an attack on their character in the context @Vinayaka were discussing. I find nothing productive out of calling someone a liar in a debate. Do you?

Attack the argument, not the person.

Ironically, this is more of an ad hominem than calming someone a liar.

I wasn't drawing a distinction.