• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why do people often seem to have problems admitting ignorance?

LegionOnomaMoi

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Nobody likes to be wrong. I'm the first to admit that I'm the last to admit that I'm wrong about something. I like to think (and there is some truth to this) that this is because I tend not to form opinions about things until I have thought about them and studied them in some depth. Thus if I don't know much (or anything) about a particular topic, I won't weigh in on issues regarding it. I'll just admit that I don't understand enough to comment or that I don't know.
We are all ignorant of most subjects. Yet for some reason I continuously find people talking about subjects, fields, or topics they don't really understand as if they were experts. And I don't get it. True, I'm biased here: if I am interested in some subject I am not content until I am sufficiently familiar with it to understand the technical literature, and I often avod subjects that aren't academic or don't have technical literature because I can't get the kind of answers I look for (e.g., I don't pay much attention to stories in the news as I can't verify the findings the way I feel compelled to). Most people are happy to read popular literature on subjects they are interested in. And that's fine.
Yet time and time again I find people making adamant statements about the implications of the big bang theory, quantum mechanics, special relativity, deterministic physics, neuroscience, the nature of scientific research, the scientific method, logic, math, etc., despite having at best an understanding of these subjects that can be gained from reading sensationalist books, websites, or magazine articles.
Do others also find people reluctant to admit ignorance of a subject/topic? If so, any thoughts on why this is or whether there are particular subjects/topics that individuals tend to believe they have an understanding of which they don't in act possess? Do people tend to insist their beliefs about some subject they actually don't really know much about are correct because they believe they understand the issues better than they in fact do, or is it more because they don't want to admit they really don't understand (or both?)?
What makes people believe they understand subjects or topics (especially academic) and how often do you think they actually do?
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
Nobody likes to be wrong. I'm the first to admit that I'm the last to admit that I'm wrong about something. I like to think (and there is some truth to this) that this is because I tend not to form opinions about things until I have thought about them and studied them in some depth. Thus if I don't know much (or anything) about a particular topic, I won't weigh in on issues regarding it. I'll just admit that I don't understand enough to comment or that I don't know.

I tend to form an opinion but try to admit to myself how poorly researched it is, and allow myself to flip flop around as my understanding develops. Part of that is my job...I am regularly an 'expert' on topics where I have less knowledge than my clients, although I can usually bring structure and rigor which helps them organise their own understandings better.

We are all ignorant of most subjects. Yet for some reason I continuously find people talking about subjects, fields, or topics they don't really understand as if they were experts. And I don't get it. True, I'm biased here: if I am interested in some subject I am not content until I am sufficiently familiar with it to understand the technical literature, and I often avod subjects that aren't academic or don't have technical literature because I can't get the kind of answers I look for (e.g., I don't pay much attention to stories in the news as I can't verify the findings the way I feel compelled to). Most people are happy to read popular literature on subjects they are interested in. And that's fine.

Depending on the topic of interest, there might not BE a correct answer, or body of knowledge. There is also the devil of time. I spend a lot of time reading about certain periods of history, in varying epochs. Dependent on the period and topic, the source material could be rare or hard to verify. It might also be in ancient languages I don't understand.
You seem to have an issue with secondary sources, perhaps? And yet, in truth, most arguments would be vastly improved if people actually read secondary sources widely, or even understood what they were reading. Focus on primary sources leads to it's own problems, in some ways.

Yet time and time again I find people making adamant statements about the implications of the big bang theory, quantum mechanics, special relativity, deterministic physics, neuroscience, the nature of scientific research, the scientific method, logic, math, etc., despite having at best an understanding of these subjects that can be gained from reading sensationalist books, websites, or magazine articles.

Oh...that...
Well, people are idiots. I've written some threads here on embracing Ignorance, although me being me I put it in the Jokes thread and turned Ignorance into a Goddess. Still, I agree with you on this type of material. Not only is a level of expertise required to understand and study the materials on offer, but a level of investment is required to remain up to date.

Do others also find people reluctant to admit ignorance of a subject/topic? If so, any thoughts on why this is or whether there are particular subjects/topics that individuals tend to believe they have an understanding of which they don't in act possess? Do people tend to insist their beliefs about some subject they actually don't really know much about are correct because they believe they understand the issues better than they in fact do, or is it more because they don't want to admit they really don't understand (or both?)?
What makes people believe they understand subjects or topics (especially academic) and how often do you think they actually do?

But...but...but...opinions are always right, don't you know?
I have a good layman's understanding of a lot of science topics. That's handy, not because it means I understand them, but because it becomes at least a useful bulldust meter, for working out when people around me are on the same level of ignorance I am. Then I can safely ignore them, and go order a new drink instead.
 

YmirGF

Bodhisattva in Recovery
This reminds me of one of my favorite sayings, "Ah, a brain the size of a small planet and yet somehow he misses putting on his sweater the right side out." *sigh*

I'm also reminded of a year ago or so when I was passionately describing some complicated thing to two people. This was a topic I knew well and have read extensively on. My dialogue ran counter to that of the two people I was talking with and they both rounded on me and said, "But that is just your opinion!" I was literally stunned and even tried to explain that it wasn't my opinion and that if they bothered to investigate the topic they would find, in fairly short order, that what I was trying to say was more or less accurate. For some reason they both felt that they had made a major point rendering my "opinion" moot. I think I got up and went and cut the grass....

As Legion says though, on matters that I have not studied I will not get into a deep conversation about... as I have no framework to construct intelligent points. I suppose if folks just like to think by the seat of their pants, that is just dandy, but it can be a real time-waster listening to them. My patience is finite.
 

Laika

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Nobody likes to be wrong. I'm the first to admit that I'm the last to admit that I'm wrong about something. I like to think (and there is some truth to this) that this is because I tend not to form opinions about things until I have thought about them and studied them in some depth. Thus if I don't know much (or anything) about a particular topic, I won't weigh in on issues regarding it. I'll just admit that I don't understand enough to comment or that I don't know.
We are all ignorant of most subjects. Yet for some reason I continuously find people talking about subjects, fields, or topics they don't really understand as if they were experts. And I don't get it. True, I'm biased here: if I am interested in some subject I am not content until I am sufficiently familiar with it to understand the technical literature, and I often avod subjects that aren't academic or don't have technical literature because I can't get the kind of answers I look for (e.g., I don't pay much attention to stories in the news as I can't verify the findings the way I feel compelled to). Most people are happy to read popular literature on subjects they are interested in. And that's fine.
Yet time and time again I find people making adamant statements about the implications of the big bang theory, quantum mechanics, special relativity, deterministic physics, neuroscience, the nature of scientific research, the scientific method, logic, math, etc., despite having at best an understanding of these subjects that can be gained from reading sensationalist books, websites, or magazine articles.
Do others also find people reluctant to admit ignorance of a subject/topic? If so, any thoughts on why this is or whether there are particular subjects/topics that individuals tend to believe they have an understanding of which they don't in act possess? Do people tend to insist their beliefs about some subject they actually don't really know much about are correct because they believe they understand the issues better than they in fact do, or is it more because they don't want to admit they really don't understand (or both?)?
What makes people believe they understand subjects or topics (especially academic) and how often do you think they actually do?

I'm generally "for" people to comment on Scientific topics as in the process of admitting we are wrong, we can learn a great deal from it. That very much is part of the scientific method, of debating something in order to understand it. Science can be democratic and enlightening, but it means accepting that not all views on a subject are equal and that some people have more expertise or are more qualified. That can be a problem if we think being stupid/ignorant/etc is a reflection of self-worth. it isn't as its just a reflection of the fact we can only know a finite amount of "stuff". it still sucks though because of the stigma attached to it of being seen to be wrong.
 

LegionOnomaMoi

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Depending on the topic of interest, there might not BE a correct answer, or body of knowledge.
Very true. Sure, when it comes to issues like the philosophy of mind, or whether string theory qualifies as science, the nature of science (NoS), the ideal political system, etc., the "right answer" usually depends upon a particular ideological stance, opinion, etc., (i.e., there isn't really any right answer). But for other matters there might not be, as you say, even a body of knowledge (e.g., whether Tom Cruise is gay, how effective so-called systems of combatives are in comparison to MMA or traditional martial arts, whether the conservatives still dominate talk radio, whether the "Green Monster" says something negative or positive about the Red Sox, etc.). I tend to know little about such issues precisely because there isn't really any body of knowledge that allows for a an approach to what might be a correct answer (or at least correct analysis of the relevant issues).

It might also be in ancient languages I don't understand.
Also very true. I have a serious issue reading translations, and as a result I have dedicated a great deal of time (or, alternatively, have wasted a lot of time and money) learning a number of languages so that I don't have to rely on translations. But I do admit there exist many applications for which translations are perfectly adequate. For example, people are probably better able to understand Greek drama via translations than they are Shakespearean plays. I have also found that the kind of analysis of religious texts like the Bible or the Koran only require reading them in their original languages for a fairly small subset of believers making very specific claims.
You seem to have an issue with secondary sources, perhaps?
I deal mostly with secondary sources, but we might be using the term differently. To me, primary sources are e.g., the actual writings of Aristotle, Aquinas, Laplace, Einstein, etc. Most of modern scholarship consists of secondary sources. But I have found it very difficult to get to the bottom of issues of political influences and ideological influences in the sciences, the problems with peer-review, replicating studies when data isn't made available, etc., and so addressing issues about whether Hilary Clinton did or said X, Trump believes or intends o do Y, etc., are essentially unanswerable by the standards I typically rely on.

But...but...but...opinions are always right, don't you know?
Sure, as long as they're my opinions :)
That's handy, not because it means I understand them, but because it becomes at least a useful bulldust meter, for working out when people around me are on the same level of ignorance I am. Then I can safely ignore them, and go order a new drink instead.
Just to clarify, I have no problem with the use of popular sources. In fact, I HIGHLY recommend it. I wouldn't wish upon anybody my neurotic obsession to understand the topics/subjects I study at the level of technicality I feel compelled to, nor do I think it is particularly productive, useful, or beneficial. What I don't understand is when it seems that people confuse the kind of understanding gleaned from popular sources with a sufficient knowledge of the issues/matters to act like experts, whether it concerns adamantly asserting that some biblical passage means X despite being unable to actually READ the passage or that the brain just like a computer despite ignorance of neuroscience, computability, etc. I'm not saying that everybody does this (or even that most do). Most of the time, I think, people read some popular book on the brain or string theory and gain a certain degree of understanding they recognize as limited. When confronted with information that conflicts with this understanding, they readily revise their beliefs because they recognize that they have only a fairly superficial understanding of the subject. But many times it seems that individuals who have a superficial understanding will e.g., point out "errors" in graduate textbooks or journal articles based upon nothing more than some familiarity with popular sources. And that I just don't get.
 

LegionOnomaMoi

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Like, he has to ask? :)
OK, I'm a moron with a terrible grasp of human nature. Granted. But I really DON'T get it! It confuses me. Reluctance to admit one is wrong? Sure, I get that (all to well). But when it is obvious that all of us are ignorant of most subjects, why the reluctance to acknowledge when this is the case?
 

Marcus 17'17

We are the manifestation of God's intention.
Nobody likes to be wrong. I'm the first to admit that I'm the last to admit that I'm wrong about something. I like to think (and there is some truth to this) that this is because I tend not to form opinions about things until I have thought about them and studied them in some depth. Thus if I don't know much (or anything) about a particular topic, I won't weigh in on issues regarding it. I'll just admit that I don't understand enough to comment or that I don't know.
We are all ignorant of most subjects. Yet for some reason I continuously find people talking about subjects, fields, or topics they don't really understand as if they were experts. And I don't get it. True, I'm biased here: if I am interested in some subject I am not content until I am sufficiently familiar with it to understand the technical literature, and I often avod subjects that aren't academic or don't have technical literature because I can't get the kind of answers I look for (e.g., I don't pay much attention to stories in the news as I can't verify the findings the way I feel compelled to). Most people are happy to read popular literature on subjects they are interested in. And that's fine.
Yet time and time again I find people making adamant statements about the implications of the big bang theory, quantum mechanics, special relativity, deterministic physics, neuroscience, the nature of scientific research, the scientific method, logic, math, etc., despite having at best an understanding of these subjects that can be gained from reading sensationalist books, websites, or magazine articles.
Do others also find people reluctant to admit ignorance of a subject/topic? If so, any thoughts on why this is or whether there are particular subjects/topics that individuals tend to believe they have an understanding of which they don't in act possess? Do people tend to insist their beliefs about some subject they actually don't really know much about are correct because they believe they understand the issues better than they in fact do, or is it more because they don't want to admit they really don't understand (or both?)?
What makes people believe they understand subjects or topics (especially academic) and how often do you think they actually do?


Few people seem to know how great they are ?? we seem to dwell in this state of pretence or ritual of our true nature. Mostly we pretend to be great when we truly are. A paridox are we.
Some call it the fall of Adam or the lost word. Maybe our existance unlike the tree or the Elephant is to journey from darkenss to light. Then simply end each story with increased learning. Ignorance must be purposeful, like pain and suffering some people choose to rise above take control and find a better way. Maybe igronance is a gift that few understand yet many suffer.
Thank you for sharing. Kind regards.
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
Very true. Sure, when it comes to issues like the philosophy of mind, or whether string theory qualifies as science, the nature of science (NoS), the ideal political system, etc., the "right answer" usually depends upon a particular ideological stance, opinion, etc., (i.e., there isn't really any right answer). But for other matters there might not be, as you say, even a body of knowledge (e.g., whether Tom Cruise is gay, how effective so-called systems of combatives are in comparison to MMA or traditional martial arts, whether the conservatives still dominate talk radio, whether the "Green Monster" says something negative or positive about the Red Sox, etc.). I tend to know little about such issues precisely because there isn't really any body of knowledge that allows for a an approach to what might be a correct answer (or at least correct analysis of the relevant issues).

I do my best work in the grey areas. I can be quite convincing when pesky things like facts, or accumulated bodies of knowledge aren't placed in my way...ahem...

Also very true. I have a serious issue reading translations, and as a result I have dedicated a great deal of time (or, alternatively, have wasted a lot of time and money) learning a number of languages so that I don't have to rely on translations. But I do admit there exist many applications for which translations are perfectly adequate. For example, people are probably better able to understand Greek drama via translations than they are Shakespearean plays. I have also found that the kind of analysis of religious texts like the Bible or the Koran only require reading them in their original languages for a fairly small subset of believers making very specific claims.

I deal mostly with secondary sources, but we might be using the term differently. To me, primary sources are e.g., the actual writings of Aristotle, Aquinas, Laplace, Einstein, etc. Most of modern scholarship consists of secondary sources. But I have found it very difficult to get to the bottom of issues of political influences and ideological influences in the sciences, the problems with peer-review, replicating studies when data isn't made available, etc., and so addressing issues about whether Hilary Clinton did or said X, Trump believes or intends o do Y, etc., are essentially unanswerable by the standards I typically rely on.

Hmm...we seem to be using secondary sources in the same way. Basically, on topics of interest to me, I try to widely examine secondary sources, but rarely get involved with primary sources. Mostly due to the nature of the topics I am studying. I then effectively rely on the spread of secondary sources to hopefully clean out some of the bias I'm accumulating.


Sure, as long as they're my opinions :)

*laughs*
This sounds way too much like me. Are you Australian?

Just to clarify, I have no problem with the use of popular sources. In fact, I HIGHLY recommend it. I wouldn't wish upon anybody my neurotic obsession to understand the topics/subjects I study at the level of technicality I feel compelled to, nor do I think it is particularly productive, useful, or beneficial. What I don't understand is when it seems that people confuse the kind of understanding gleaned from popular sources with a sufficient knowledge of the issues/matters to act like experts, whether it concerns adamantly asserting that some biblical passage means X despite being unable to actually READ the passage or that the brain just like a computer despite ignorance of neuroscience, computability, etc. I'm not saying that everybody does this (or even that most do). Most of the time, I think, people read some popular book on the brain or string theory and gain a certain degree of understanding they recognize as limited. When confronted with information that conflicts with this understanding, they readily revise their beliefs because they recognize that they have only a fairly superficial understanding of the subject. But many times it seems that individuals who have a superficial understanding will e.g., point out "errors" in graduate textbooks or journal articles based upon nothing more than some familiarity with popular sources. And that I just don't get.

Makes sense. In seriousness, I think people put negative value against the term 'ignorant', as if a person is either ignorant or not (in a general sense). Which is...ironically...kinda ignorant.

Anywhoos, told ya I had an old thread on workshipping ignorance, right...

http://www.religiousforums.com/thre...d-anyway-sorta-yay.178517/page-3#post-4718694
 
Last edited:

Jumi

Well-Known Member
The more we know the more we know how hard it is to really know something. The ones who are most certain haven't taken the steps to really know a topic or have dedicated themselves to it. Those who have dedicated themselves to knowing usually know the limits of what a theory applies to. There is no claiming evolution formed our sun for example. I freely admit ignorance of topics I know nothing about and consider someone correcting my mistakes doing me a favor. On other topics I know just enough to know that someone has not studied the topic themselves while claiming expertise.

I had an inflated ego when I was less than half my age now. Struggles, studies in physical sciences and learning new languages played a part of deflating it. Long periods of pain and shorter periods of being poor and depression did it's work. Experiences in meditation helped me realize that my beliefs weren't that important. Discussions on forums like RF helped me strengthen the understanding from those experiences.
 

bobhikes

Nondetermined
Premium Member
Nobody likes to be wrong. I'm the first to admit that I'm the last to admit that I'm wrong about something. I like to think (and there is some truth to this) that this is because I tend not to form opinions about things until I have thought about them and studied them in some depth. Thus if I don't know much (or anything) about a particular topic, I won't weigh in on issues regarding it. I'll just admit that I don't understand enough to comment or that I don't know.
We are all ignorant of most subjects. Yet for some reason I continuously find people talking about subjects, fields, or topics they don't really understand as if they were experts. And I don't get it. True, I'm biased here: if I am interested in some subject I am not content until I am sufficiently familiar with it to understand the technical literature, and I often avod subjects that aren't academic or don't have technical literature because I can't get the kind of answers I look for (e.g., I don't pay much attention to stories in the news as I can't verify the findings the way I feel compelled to). Most people are happy to read popular literature on subjects they are interested in. And that's fine.
Yet time and time again I find people making adamant statements about the implications of the big bang theory, quantum mechanics, special relativity, deterministic physics, neuroscience, the nature of scientific research, the scientific method, logic, math, etc., despite having at best an understanding of these subjects that can be gained from reading sensationalist books, websites, or magazine articles.
Do others also find people reluctant to admit ignorance of a subject/topic? If so, any thoughts on why this is or whether there are particular subjects/topics that individuals tend to believe they have an understanding of which they don't in act possess? Do people tend to insist their beliefs about some subject they actually don't really know much about are correct because they believe they understand the issues better than they in fact do, or is it more because they don't want to admit they really don't understand (or both?)?
What makes people believe they understand subjects or topics (especially academic) and how often do you think they actually do?

Because once you admit it you become the butt of jokes. People insist that you get better knowledge. People insist that you ignorance of the subject is hurting everyone in the world. People put you in a low position now and refuse to take you serious on other things.

A person needs to be very self confident to be able to admit ignorance because once they do the vultures are going to pick away at the persons self worth.
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
Because once you admit it you become the butt of jokes. People insist that you get better knowledge. People insist that you ignorance of the subject is hurting everyone in the world. People put you in a low position now and refuse to take you serious on other things.

A person needs to be very self confident to be able to admit ignorance because once they do the vultures are going to pick away at the persons self worth.

There is a certain level of freedom/satisfaction when you admit ignorance on something, and those around you realise they know even less about it than you do though...

;)
 

Guy Threepwood

Mighty Pirate
Nobody likes to be wrong. I'm the first to admit that I'm the last to admit that I'm wrong about something. I like to think (and there is some truth to this) that this is because I tend not to form opinions about things until I have thought about them and studied them in some depth. Thus if I don't know much (or anything) about a particular topic, I won't weigh in on issues regarding it. I'll just admit that I don't understand enough to comment or that I don't know.
We are all ignorant of most subjects. Yet for some reason I continuously find people talking about subjects, fields, or topics they don't really understand as if they were experts. And I don't get it. True, I'm biased here: if I am interested in some subject I am not content until I am sufficiently familiar with it to understand the technical literature, and I often avod subjects that aren't academic or don't have technical literature because I can't get the kind of answers I look for (e.g., I don't pay much attention to stories in the news as I can't verify the findings the way I feel compelled to). Most people are happy to read popular literature on subjects they are interested in. And that's fine.
Yet time and time again I find people making adamant statements about the implications of the big bang theory, quantum mechanics, special relativity, deterministic physics, neuroscience, the nature of scientific research, the scientific method, logic, math, etc., despite having at best an understanding of these subjects that can be gained from reading sensationalist books, websites, or magazine articles.
Do others also find people reluctant to admit ignorance of a subject/topic? If so, any thoughts on why this is or whether there are particular subjects/topics that individuals tend to believe they have an understanding of which they don't in act possess? Do people tend to insist their beliefs about some subject they actually don't really know much about are correct because they believe they understand the issues better than they in fact do, or is it more because they don't want to admit they really don't understand (or both?)?
What makes people believe they understand subjects or topics (especially academic) and how often do you think they actually do?

I'd say 'academic expertise' is something of an oxymoron..

I would consider a guy who has spent most of his life working on cars, farming, performing surgeries, playing in an orchestra i.e. demonstrating his skill to a practical end, to be an expert, and I would defer to their advice in those fields

An academic's demonstrated practical skill is succeeding in academia- how to make a name for yourself, appeal to your peers, sell books, fill auditoriums, get grants

In terms of the implications of scientific concepts, I think the 'ignorant masses' have a much better track record on the big questions, because they often do have that greater experience and understanding of practical reality.

An example I give- arguably the greatest practical scientific contribution to mankind- powered flight, came from a couple of high school dropouts who liked actually using the scientific method to make things that work

In contrast Stephen Hawking is probably the most famous, successful, qualified and revered academic scientist, who gave us the debunked 'big crunch' theory, and otherwise has contributed less of demonstrable value than the inventor of the chip clip. Yet still claims he can somehow understand the entire universe to the point of making God redundant!
 

nilsz

bzzt
I attribute most of my mistaken statements about things to faulty inference, which can be difficult to discover in yourself when your understanding seems to make sense most of the time. I am quite confident that I am not the worst example of this though, as someone I know in my daily life seems to have rather excessive faith in her own intuition, often detailing the ulterior motives of persons involved in an incident that I just told her about, and tends to stick with whatever she first thought until the evidence against it becomes damning.
 
Last edited:

beenherebeforeagain

Rogue Animist
Premium Member
I'd say 'academic expertise' is something of an oxymoron..

I would consider a guy who has spent most of his life working on cars, farming, performing surgeries, playing in an orchestra i.e. demonstrating his skill to a practical end, to be an expert, and I would defer to their advice in those fields

An academic's demonstrated practical skill is succeeding in academia- how to make a name for yourself, appeal to your peers, sell books, fill auditoriums, get grants

In terms of the implications of scientific concepts, I think the 'ignorant masses' have a much better track record on the big questions, because they often do have that greater experience and understanding of practical reality.

An example I give- arguably the greatest practical scientific contribution to mankind- powered flight, came from a couple of high school dropouts who liked actually using the scientific method to make things that work

In contrast Stephen Hawking is probably the most famous, successful, qualified and revered academic scientist, who gave us the debunked 'big crunch' theory, and otherwise has contributed less of demonstrable value than the inventor of the chip clip. Yet still claims he can somehow understand the entire universe to the point of making God redundant!
Okay, I get that you measure worth based on what you consider clearly pragmatic results. That's fine; that's how I tend to approach the world, too.

But the way you express your understanding of academia shows that you have no real familiarity with it. Yes, there is a degree of name-making and peer-appeals, but few get much beyond their own chosen field. While many write books, journal articles, and popular articles, few can really be said to succeed at that--most books don't sell very many copies, and most articles don't receive very many citations. The only way most academics "fill auditoriums" is when they are teaching a course or perhaps presenting research at a conference--again, it is a rare few who actually draw big crowds. And while grants in some fields are plentiful and comparatively easy to come by and may on occasion be sizeable, most academics are lucky to get a couple of grants over their careers, especially in the social sciences and humanities, but it highly depends of the field. Most grants help to cover the cost of research or other activity, but in many fields, you have to scrape together your own money (some schools provide a small support allowance, but that's increasingly rare, too).

Not sure what you're referring to in saying that the masses have a better track record than academics on "big issues." Could you give some further example?

You use the example of Hawking, a theoretical physicist. His specialty is trying to understand and then express mathematically the implications of current observations and existing theories and hypotheses--in order to make testable predictions. He's a human like anyone else, so his understanding--and also the observations and theories he's working with--have changed over the course of his career. It's not surprising, and in fact it's a sign of good science that predictions were made, and then rejected because further evidence and reasoning showed the errors of the prediction. As for his rejection of God--so? To his understanding, there is no room or need in the mathematics for a deity--you or anyone else is welcome to review his math and propose an alternative that describes what we know about the universe and includes either room or a need for deity.

Think about the reaction had he announced, after all his years of study and thought, and could show it mathematically, that there is a place for and a need for God in the mathematics of physics. How would other physicists responded? How would the "ignorant masses" have responded? How would you? Would you be criticizing him now? And what would be the basis for these different responses? Real knowledge about physics? Or opinion based in something else?

I disagree that the measure of the value of all activity is whether or not there is a current "benefit" to the knowledge--because the benefit from pursuing questions such as the nature of the cosmic structure or the behavior of black holes might not come for centuries.
 

BSM1

What? Me worry?
Nobody likes to be wrong. I'm the first to admit that I'm the last to admit that I'm wrong about something. I like to think (and there is some truth to this) that this is because I tend not to form opinions about things until I have thought about them and studied them in some depth. Thus if I don't know much (or anything) about a particular topic, I won't weigh in on issues regarding it. I'll just admit that I don't understand enough to comment or that I don't know.
We are all ignorant of most subjects. Yet for some reason I continuously find people talking about subjects, fields, or topics they don't really understand as if they were experts. And I don't get it. True, I'm biased here: if I am interested in some subject I am not content until I am sufficiently familiar with it to understand the technical literature, and I often avod subjects that aren't academic or don't have technical literature because I can't get the kind of answers I look for (e.g., I don't pay much attention to stories in the news as I can't verify the findings the way I feel compelled to). Most people are happy to read popular literature on subjects they are interested in. And that's fine.
Yet time and time again I find people making adamant statements about the implications of the big bang theory, quantum mechanics, special relativity, deterministic physics, neuroscience, the nature of scientific research, the scientific method, logic, math, etc., despite having at best an understanding of these subjects that can be gained from reading sensationalist books, websites, or magazine articles.
Do others also find people reluctant to admit ignorance of a subject/topic? If so, any thoughts on why this is or whether there are particular subjects/topics that individuals tend to believe they have an understanding of which they don't in act possess? Do people tend to insist their beliefs about some subject they actually don't really know much about are correct because they believe they understand the issues better than they in fact do, or is it more because they don't want to admit they really don't understand (or both?)?
What makes people believe they understand subjects or topics (especially academic) and how often do you think they actually do?


Seems many of those you refer to want to be right instead of wanting the truth; or to admit the truth.
 

Guy Threepwood

Mighty Pirate
Okay, I get that you measure worth based on what you consider clearly pragmatic results. That's fine; that's how I tend to approach the world, too.

But the way you express your understanding of academia shows that you have no real familiarity with it. Yes, there is a degree of name-making and peer-appeals, but few get much beyond their own chosen field. While many write books, journal articles, and popular articles, few can really be said to succeed at that--most books don't sell very many copies, and most articles don't receive very many citations. The only way most academics "fill auditoriums" is when they are teaching a course or perhaps presenting research at a conference--again, it is a rare few who actually draw big crowds. And while grants in some fields are plentiful and comparatively easy to come by and may on occasion be sizeable, most academics are lucky to get a couple of grants over their careers, especially in the social sciences and humanities, but it highly depends of the field. Most grants help to cover the cost of research or other activity, but in many fields, you have to scrape together your own money (some schools provide a small support allowance, but that's increasingly rare, too).

Not sure what you're referring to in saying that the masses have a better track record than academics on "big issues." Could you give some further example?


I agree successful academics are a minority, which is an added problem, 'scientific truth' is determined by a disproportionately small, and disproportionately atheist academic class

These academics overwhelmingly favored static/ eternal models for the universe
concepts of creation events were for the ignorant masses- and mocked as religious pseudo-science (and 'big bang')

They favored classical physics, as a complete explanation for all physical reality-
again concepts of mysterious unpredictable forces, underlying and guiding these superficial observations of physics, was for the uneducated superstitious masses

academics embraced classical evolution, Darwinism, slow steady progression and transitions clearly explanaing all life, gaps and drastic jumps in the record were only artifacts of an incomplete record
Non academics were far more likely to take the evidence at face value, without the added academic imagination

You use the example of Hawking, a theoretical physicist. His specialty is trying to understand and then express mathematically the implications of current observations and existing theories and hypotheses--in order to make testable predictions. He's a human like anyone else, so his understanding--and also the observations and theories he's working with--have changed over the course of his career. It's not surprising, and in fact it's a sign of good science that predictions were made, and then rejected because further evidence and reasoning showed the errors of the prediction. A

He's human, but one of very few who tried to refute God, explain existence, by proposing that the universe would kick into reverse, that we'd all crawl back into the womb- that was never the prediction of the majority of free thinking humanity, only a tiny minority of academics, and nobody got it more wrong.

He changed to multiverses, and I agree with Krauss on this 'If your theory involves an infinite probability machine, it's not entirely clear you even have a theory'

-you or anyone else is welcome to review his math and propose an alternative that describes what we know about the universe and includes either room or a need for deity.

come on give me a tough question!
his 'math' is explicitly based on overcoming the staggering improbability of our universe being accidentally created.

And so that if you created enough random universes, anything would pop up eventually- even life supporting universes like ours, supporting complex and ultimately sentient beings, who posses creative intelligence, with a penchant for creating things, even their own universe hypothetically..... ooops... but NEVER anything that could ever be described as God of course! This infinite probability machine comes equipped with a strict safety mechanism to prevent this ever happening!



Think about the reaction had he announced, after all his years of study and thought, and could show it mathematically, that there is a place for and a need for God in the mathematics of physics. How would other physicists responded? How would the "ignorant masses" have responded? How would you? Would you be criticizing him now? And what would be the basis for these different responses? Real knowledge about physics? Or opinion based in something else?

I disagree that the measure of the value of all activity is whether or not there is a current "benefit" to the knowledge--because the benefit from pursuing questions such as the nature of the cosmic structure or the behavior of black holes might not come for centuries.

Again, us ignorant masses already figured that out a long time ago, while atheist academics still believed in static eternal universes, steady state, big crunch etc.
we were right about the failings of these models and classical physics (and evolution I believe) and for the correct mathematical reasons- simple God refuting algorithms are mathematically inadequate to account for the world see around us.

Skeptics of atheism are free from these barriers to progress, we have no motivation to stop short at the simplest explanation and declare it a final complete answer.

So this is not just about masses v academia, but correspondingly science v atheism.
 
Last edited:

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
Unfortunately, ignorance is a very relative animal. Sure, you can have a level of knowledge of a subject that allows you to spot and call out the "amateurs", however there is probably someone even more versed in the subject matter than you who would point to you as the amateur and point to your "amateur" as a candidate for transportation by short-bus.

In the end, many of us (myself included) end up talking like experts about topics we are in no way qualified to do so about - even though we've "done our homework". Basically - I would contend that we're all still basically ignorant (to varying degrees) about EVERYTHING.

It's funny - I'm reminded of when I played Street Fighter online against others. There is a "tier" system, by which you gain rank based on the types of matches you win vs. the tiers of other players you're matched against. You may feel high and mighty while playing and winning in your own tier, but as soon as you progress, you are fighting a better tier of opponents - and as you are (sometimes) pushed back down out of that ranking, you begin to realize how foolish you are to EVER feel "high and mighty" after ANY win.
 
Top