Agnotology

[jeremyp]

Agnotology is the new word for the deliberate spreading of ignorance

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160105-the-man-who-studies-the-spread-of-ignorance

as somebody on Slashdot said, this has been going on for 6,000 years...

[Shaker]

Now there's a man who will never be out of a job.

[Sriram]

That is something that could change from time to time, society to society and even person to person..

Is the idea of God and after-life....knowledge or ignorance?  I would say definitely knowledge....and you would say definitely ignorance!

Knowledge is not just information. Its about how we put together information meaningfully. The same information can be put together knowledgeably or ignorantly....to give different pictures of reality. 

[Jack Knave]

But do they know it's called that?

[Leonard James]

Is the idea of God and after-life....knowledge or ignorance?  I would say definitely knowledge....and you would say definitely ignorance!

No, it's not knowledge or ignorance ... it's just wishful thinking.

[L.A.]

Agnotology is the new word for the deliberate spreading of ignorance

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160105-the-man-who-studies-the-spread-of-ignorance

as somebody on Slashdot said, this has been going on for 6,000 years...

It sounds to me that the word is a misnomer, in the (quoted) example of the tobacco industry, it's not so much ignorance that is spread as deliberate lies.

Why not just call a lie a lie?

[jeremyp]

Why not just call a lie a lie?

Because lying is illegal. It's about perpetrating lies but without ever being in a situation where it can be proved in a court of law.

[L.A.]

Because lying is illegal. It's about perpetrating lies but without ever being in a situation where it can be proved in a court of law.

Terminological inexactitude then if you think it would make the lawyers happier - but it's not spreading ignorance, it's spreading misinformation.

[Stranger]

That is something that could change from time to time, society to society and even person to person..

Is the idea of God and after-life....knowledge or ignorance?  I would say definitely knowledge....and you would say definitely ignorance!

Knowledge is not just information. Its about how we put together information meaningfully. The same information can be put together knowledgeably or ignorantly....to give different pictures of reality.

Interesting use of the word 'knowledge'.

From a philosophical point of view, defining exactly what one means by (propositional) knowledge is a bit tricky. Traditionally (Plato IIRC) it was viewed as "justified true belief"^*, that is, it's something you believe, it is true and you can offer justification for it (the idea being that you can't have knowledge from a random guess, even if it's true). However, there are some rather tricky counterexamples (Gettier) that seem to show that there are significant problems with this definition.

Science, on the other hand, deals with theories can be justified from the current, intersubjectively verifiable evidence (Popper). There is no requirement that theories be true in some absolute sense, just that they have stood up to all attempts at falsification.

To take your examples. The word 'god' is way too imprecise (it is understood to mean so many different things to different people) for the statement "god exists" to even form a meaningful proposition, without further definition.

However, I have yet to hear anything approaching a reasonable justification for any of its many definitions (except those that equate 'god' to the universe, some part of the universe, or the laws of nature). So the traditional notion of knowledge is out (unless you can provide a definition and justification). As for intersubjectively verifiable evidence goes: I have never heard of any.

The afterlife would also fall down in both cases.

So, how would you define knowledge in such a way as those two beliefs are included and different, far-fetched ideas (that you don't like) are excluded (purple aliens from Andromeda, a different and incompatible god to the one you defined, the ghost of Plato talks to you in your dreams every night, the moon is a hologram, alien abductions, and so on)?


* The Oxford Dictionaries site still give this as the phiosphical sense of the word.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/knowledge

[L.A.]

To take your examples. The word 'god' is way too imprecise (it is understood to mean so many different things to different people) for the statement "god exists" to even form a meaningful proposition, without further definition.

Of course it's perfectly possible to prove that God exists if you define God in the right way.

We might say that "God is that force in the universe that brings about ordered complexity out of the random chaos " (the god of anti-entropy as someone on this forum once observed)

We look about us and we see life is a highly ordered series of processes (of which we are a part) - therefore God exists!

[Shaker]

Of course it's perfectly possible to prove that God exists if you define God in the right way.

We might say that "God is that force in the universe that brings about ordered complexity out of the random chaos " (the god of anti-entropy as someone on this forum once observed)

We look about us and we see life is a highly ordered series of processes (of which we are a part) - therefore God exists!

You could indeed do that; but if so, how are the usual suspects going to fob us off by claiming that a blind natural process of matter-energy (a) requires praise and worship at regular intervals, (b) wants animals slaughtered a certain way and (c) doesn't like same-sex marriage? If God is merely a label for a force that produces order in matter-energy in some cases, where's the ability to control people's lives in that?

Can't see that one flying, can you?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You could indeed do that; but if so, how are the usual suspects going to fob us off by claiming that a blind natural process of matter-energy (a) requires praise and worship at regular intervals, (b) wants animals slaughtered a certain way and (c) doesn't like same-sex marriage?

But then you could be accused of arbitrarily excluding mind/and or direction and governance in these matters.

I would imagine God has the same dislike of linguistic piracy as we all do

[Shaker]

But then you could be accused of arbitrarily excluding mind/and or direction and governance in these matters.

Nothing arbitrary about excluding something that lacks elementary definition let alone evidence.

I would imagine God has the same dislike of linguistic piracy as we all do

You can imagine it because that's all you can do, eh, Vlad

[Stranger]

But then you could be accused of arbitrarily excluding mind/and or direction and governance in these matters.

How many times do you have to be told, Vlad?

I (and I'm sure many others) don't exclude the possibility of mind or 'direction' (whatever you mean by that), just that we see no evidence for it - no reason to regard it as at all probable.

[L.A.]

You could indeed do that; but if so, how are the usual suspects going to fob us off by claiming that a blind natural process of matter-energy (a) requires praise and worship at regular intervals, (b) wants animals slaughtered a certain way and (c) doesn't like same-sex marriage? If God is merely a label for a force that produces order in matter-energy in some cases, where's the ability to control people's lives in that?

Can't see that one flying, can you?

Such things are way outside my proposed definition so I wouldn't even wish to speculate.

[Shaker]

Your proposed definition answers the question though doesn't it?

[L.A.]

Your proposed definition answers the question though doesn't it?

I'd say that my proposed definition is just a different way of looking at 'Life the Universe and Everything'. It answer no questions but raises many.

[Shaker]

I'd say that my proposed definition is just a different way of looking at 'Life the Universe and Everything'. It answer no questions but raises many.

It answers the questions I posed in #10.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nothing arbitrary about excluding something that lacks elementary definition let alone evidence.
You can imagine it because that's all you can do, eh, Vlad

Even Dawkins acknowledges that as far as the world is concerned there is an immediate impression of design.

There is however also the immediate questions of being (in the face of non being), and apparent governance and thence apparent purpose (in the face of chaos).

Sorry to piss on your bonfire.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Lapsed,

We look about us and we see life is a highly ordered series of processes (of which we are a part) - therefore God exists!

Works for me and that it is an on going process.

Gonnagle.

[L.A.]

It answers the questions I posed in #10.

If you are referring to the ability to control peoples lives, I suppose it could be argued:

We have the ability to control our own lives (to an extent) and that ability is highly dependant on our beliefs, therefore a belief in God will change our lives.

(this may or may not be judged to be a good thing by others)

[Shaker]

If you are referring to the ability to control peoples lives, I suppose it could be argued:

We have the ability to control our own lives (to an extent) and that ability is highly dependant on our beliefs, therefore a belief in God will change our lives.

(this may or may not be judged to be a good thing by others)

Not if your proposed definition of God is a force that brings some semblance of order out of randomness.

[Shaker]

Even Dawkins acknowledges that as far as the world is concerned there is an immediate impression of design.

The point here, as you should well know given your devotion to Dawkins and his writings, being that that impression is mistaken, appearances being known and shown to be deceptive in the light of systematised and organised knowledge (i.e. a spoon in a glass of water looks as though it's bent from certain angles - actually it isn't, it just looks that way for certain reasons that we can discover).

The bonfire remains un-pissed on.

[Stranger]

Even Dawkins acknowledges that as far as the world is concerned there is an immediate impression of design.

There is however also the immediate questions of being (in the face of non being), and apparent governance and thence apparent purpose (in the face of chaos).

The appearance of design in nature has been explained by evolution.

Your argument is on the same level as: thunder seems to be angry, so there must be an angry god of thunder...

Postulating some mind that orders the universe does absolutely nothing to answer the question of existence (being or non-being) - it just moves the problem away one step.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Some,

How many times do you have to be told, Vlad?

I (and I'm sure many others) don't exclude the possibility of mind or 'direction' (whatever you mean by that), just that we see no evidence for it - no reason to regard it as at all probable.

You can tell Trollboy all you like but he has to cling on to the lies of his personal re-definitions to maintain his "ontology" (as he would call it) nonetheless. In Trollboyland the rest of us deny even the possibility of his conjectures, morality isn’t proper morality unless it’s absolute morality, atheists, secularists and humanists are all actually anti-theists etc and wearingly etc.
 
That’s his basic schtick: make up your own meanings for words, label others as subscribers to those meanings, then attack them for it in the hope that no-one notices that the intellectual cupboard for whatever he believes in is entirely bare. 

It’s beyond scummy, but he’ll never change.

By the way, I like your Reply 8.