TL;DR: "Humans (across the population) are incredibly, incredibly stupid, and refuse to change their (emotional) minds in the face of overwhelming evidence. Being/acting/living smart is a choice that an alarming percentage of people fail to make."
Sounds like this article could have been written any year after language was invented.
Willful ignorance has always been an option, and there is no reason to believe there has been significant change in the last millennia with respect to individuals.
Willful ignorance implies knowledge that is available, but disregarded since it isn't desired; and, the knowledge someone holds is not dependent on its validity.
What has changed is the availability of different ways of thinking and the increased number of ways they go unchallenged in public discourse. With the addition of the internet/mass communication, the memes that self reinforce the strongest allow their carriers "know" with more "evidence backed" certainty than ever (albeit with more competing ways to doubt them too).
There's a sad note of "it was okay when _we_ were doing it" which suffuses the article. A good lesson why scientists should rely on argument and evidence instead of memetic weapons that don't care what direction they're being pointed in.
5 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 26.3 ms ] threadSounds like this article could have been written any year after language was invented.
> "There is simple ignorance and there is willful ignorance, which is simple ignorance coupled with the decision to remain ignorant."
I'm not so sure if being willfully ignorant really was an option for many people up until recently.
Willful ignorance implies knowledge that is available, but disregarded since it isn't desired; and, the knowledge someone holds is not dependent on its validity.
What has changed is the availability of different ways of thinking and the increased number of ways they go unchallenged in public discourse. With the addition of the internet/mass communication, the memes that self reinforce the strongest allow their carriers "know" with more "evidence backed" certainty than ever (albeit with more competing ways to doubt them too).
It's a poor fact-stopping argument that doesn't point both ways?