What does "Deny Ignorance" mean?

[UltraBudgie]

What does it mean to "Deny Ignorance"?

Does it mean telling people what the truth is? Evangelizing rejection of untruth? What is truth, anyway? That's a big question, from 30 thousand feet, and I doubt we're going to answer it on any forum.

Yet, we can somewhat point out what is false. Or, at least, what is inconsistent. Where sets of facts, which always exist within some model of reality and interpretation, are inconsistent. Where personal experience and empirically reproducible observations contradict.

Pretending there aren't contradictions is a form of ignorance. So is ignoring or writing off patterns that others see, and you don't.

Yet the question in practice is what we do for each other. Personally, I'm not here to tell anyone what they should believe. How they should approach their life and their perception of reality. The scope at which they should see the world.

And honestly, I couldn't. For myself, I live in an epistemic uncertain reality. There is no ground-level truth that I could genuinely demand others base themselves upon. Ignorance, to me, always implies some level of unfounded certainty, and with sufficient introspection nothing is certain anywhere.

In fact it's an assumption I make that we all exist with such uncertainty, that the closest we can come is our memory and sense perception -- perhaps not everyone is so constrained, and ignorant. But such reality tunnels tend to be paranoid and antisocial, and not useful. In my experience, everyone is real and in the same boat, so to speak, if engaged with sufficiently to move past projection and prejudice.

So what can we do for each other? Serve as sounding boards? Present alternative ideas and points of view? Do we synthesize push-back for each other? That seems potentially dishonest, if we put forth as truth that which we cannot honestly believe ourselves, as pretense.

The ignorance I would like to deny is the fixed mind, unable to consider anything it cannot rationalize and control. Bound by its assumptions. Not to cut it adrift, or helplessly unanchor it, but to encourage freedom of motion, of thought, if that's what is being sought. No gurus or dogmas; in my experience they just make you their bitch until you force your freedom from them.

We all must individually discover and transcend ignorance in our own ways. Or not. The practice of how we do so, as a group, should remain flexible and open. Challenging others, not to "win", but to give form to the space of our differences. As that must be done with compassion, lest everything degenerate to debate, it is an imperfect and evolving practice.

At some point we need fodder for discussion. Things we think are interesting, that we present to each other. Something we can all grasp on to, in our different ways. Tangible things, to keep it real. Everyone here brings something unique, and it is appreciated. But let's not become a content-mill! It's about cherishing each other, and our own individual interests.

And let's have fun doing it! If there's no fun, if anyone is feeling suppressed or if flame wars loom, let's step back and reconsider. That's the real touchstone.

Thanks for listening to my drivel!

[UltraBudgie]

also budgie say "deny ignorance" is deny you are ignorant haha! we all know what is true silly people!

[Maxmars]

What does it mean to "Deny Ignorance"?

Does it mean telling people what the truth is? Evangelizing rejection of untruth? What is truth, anyway? That's a big question, from 30 thousand feet, and I doubt we're going to answer it on any forum.
...

And let's have fun doing it! If there's no fun, if anyone is feeling suppressed or if flame wars loom, let's step back and reconsider. That's the real touchstone.

Thanks for listening to my drivel!

I believe I might understand, to some degree, the root of this question... 

Casting aside the titular synchronicity of the web site name, I would embark on an explanation that is more personal, than institutional... which is to say, this is just what I think.

The act of the 'denial of ignorance' need not be overt, but overt or not, the end result is the same.  I liken it to removing the obfuscation that presumption imposes on words.  

The idea, to me, represents a commitment towards a singular approach to dialog, namely that we as speakers can embrace the reality that 'ignorance' is a condition, a circumstance. 
Denying it might occasionally be as simple as pointing it out.  Other times it needs dissection, or deconstruction. 

But "ignoring" ignorance is ignorant... 

Ignorance must somehow be purged from the foundation of a discussion, if the dialog is to have prima facia value outside of mere time-killing entertainment.

In fact, many comedians sometimes craft their humorous material by actually denying ignorance themselves... sometimes 'backlighting' it's existence... other times rendering a verbal hyperbole which makes their audience evaluate the ignorance itself.  Of course, that's just one way to deal with denying ignorance, there are as many way to cope with ignorance as there are forms of ignorance to express.

The idea that denying ignorance can't be funny is hilarious to me...  It's right up there with thinking what any of us understands is in any real way 'complete.'
Truthfully, the only thing anyone can know completely is themselves... and so few have ever been said to have reached that height of cognition, it seems almost an impossibility to achieve, for a regular person like me.

Embedded ignorance makes it so words are just noise, and ultimately unrewarding to anyone who favors discernment over chatter.  (Although there is a time for everything... we are not robots.)

To address what was likely a rhetorical question...

Yes, we can serve each other by comparing notes, by offering inquiries, by restating our understanding of each other, by engaging in deconstruction and synthesis, by offering questions to be answered, challenges to be shared.  It matters not one bit that it's all theoretical, or isn't fully plumbed into existential reality, because in each speaker the truth is being distilled and crystalized... made both accessible and digestible.  There is a noble end in denying ignorance.

There can be no one formula for denying ignorance; it must manifest spontaneously and with diversity of form... with a full understanding of the depth and breadth of any ignorance, and a sincere effort shared between all those rising to the discussion.

Denying Ignorance isn't a casual pleasantry, but it's not an angst-filled weapon either. 
It may lend itself to a virtuous claim, but there is no virtue in removing the wheat from the chaff.  It has to be done for the wheat to have value...
The hammer has no virtue over the nail... because it's not about the parts, it's about the whole. 
Ignorance is just like a missing nail.

(How's that for an obtuse answer?) 

Yup... it better be fun!  Otherwise we get the nasty affectation of 'nose in the air' self-importance, or 'sniffing your own farts' kind of behaviors...

[Anna]

What is truth, anyway? That's a big question, from 30 thousand feet, and I doubt we're going to answer it on any forum.

Yet, we can somewhat point out what is false. Or, at least, what is inconsistent. Where sets of facts, which always exist within some model of reality and interpretation, are inconsistent. Where personal experience and empirically reproducible observations contradict.

Pretending there aren't contradictions is a form of ignorance...

Ok. Have you read Plato's Socratic Dialogues? I tried once reading it and, by gods... I think I know why the Greeks had enough and killed the man. Because what's the point of deconstructing someone's beliefs if the end result is confusion only? What's the point  proving someone wrong if we don't know what is right ourselves? And what's the point of exposing the lie if we can't show someone the truth?

I consider all the musings about the impossibility to discern the truth as mere philosophizing. If people engage in discussions or debates, it's because they either are convinced they are right or believe they can learn what is right from others.

I understand "denying ignorance" as taking everything I read, watch or hear with a grain of salt, verifying the information I receive but only if I'm interested in the matter. There are things that are "meh" for me and there's no need for me to wrap my head around it.

In the forums, it means checking if someone's arguments are valid and exposing the flaws in argumentation. It also means defending my views as well as I can. But again, it only applies to the topics that I'm interested or emotionally invested in. I also must have some knowledge about the topic if I'm to engage in a debate and have a strong conviction that my thesis is right.

There's no need, in my opinion, to regard a debate as something negative. Many of the discussions here and on ATS are actually debates despite not having a rigid form. It's the conflict of ideas that can descend into a flame war but doesn't have to.

[UltraBudgie]

Ok. Have you read Plato's Socratic Dialogues? I tried once reading it and, by gods... I think I know why the Greeks had enough and killed the man. Because what's the point of deconstructing someone's beliefs if the end result is confusion only? What's the point  proving someone wrong if we don't know what is right ourselves? And what's the point of exposing the lie if we can't show someone the truth?

Yeah, and he was ugly to boot. Have you seen the nose on that guy? Deconstruct that first, buddy.

Socrates basically invented rhetoric as a weapon. Ironically, in the "search for truth". Use fancy words and pivots, reflect interpretation, tie up the argument in a fractal of question and confusion. We see that so much in "debate" today. It's no wonder he was accused of corrupting the youth and given beverage options.

There's something to it, though. A paradox. How do you create free thinkers, as a deliberate endeavour? You can't just tell them what to think, present a worldview to them as truth, and expect them to "get it". Or even slyly lead them their with social pressure. That's not freethinking, that's tyranny. The child only becomes as strong and as independent as their ideological dependencies allow.

Ignorance must be swept away from within, as a personal quest and choice. So perhaps Socrates was encouraging that, as an exploration of the ultimate uselessness of rhetoric. Exploring the ground of subjectivity and illusion, as contrast to the path of truth each individual must find for themselves, on their own.

On another forum (not that one!), someone today said "ignorance is merely distance from God". Maybe so. I'll make no projections here, secular or not. Perhaps science is your north star, or reason. That's okay, and excuse my rhetoric. It takes all kinds.

[Anna]

There's something to it, though. A paradox. How do you create free thinkers, as a deliberate endeavour? You can't just tell them what to think, present a worldview to them as truth, and expect them to "get it". Or even slyly lead them their with social pressure. That's not freethinking, that's tyranny. The child only becomes as strong and as independent as their ideological dependencies allow.

Ignorance must be swept away from within, as a personal quest and choice. So perhaps Socrates was encouraging that, as an exploration of the ultimate uselessness of rhetoric. Exploring the ground of subjectivity and illusion, as contrast to the path of truth each individual must find for themselves, on their own.

Ultimately, life is the only true teacher. You gain knowledge by gaining experience. This is not to say that reading or theoretical discussion is without any value. It has some value because you have only one life and obviously you can't experience everything. But no questioning or theoretical examination will truly replace the knowledge that comes from experience.

But then again, it has its limitations too. Plenty of stupid people out there who lived through a lot of things and haven't learned anything.

[ArMaP]

What does it mean to "Deny Ignorance"?

Does it mean telling people what the truth is? Evangelizing rejection of untruth? What is truth, anyway? That's a big question, from 30 thousand feet, and I doubt we're going to answer it on any forum.

First of all, let me tell you that I didn't read all your post, as I'm too tired and sleepy for that, but, to me, ignorance is not about truth, is about information.

Sometimes, knowing that a lie is a lie is easier than know what the truth is, and it helps people getting closer to the truth (yes, truth also enters my point of view, but not directly related to knowledge/ignorance)

People can do whatever they want with knowledge, and different people can reach different conclusions based on the same knowledge, and it's also possible that nobody's conclusions are the real truth.

But, as they say, knowledge is power, for some reason dictators start by giving false information to the people and keeping the real information hidden.

As a conclusion, my point of view is that what we do here (and whenever two or more people communicate with each other) is spread information (real or not) that results in knowledge that will help people in their lives, either directly or indirectly.

[Blaine91555]

What does it mean to "Deny Ignorance"?

I suppose what it means depends on the person defining it. To me, it is simple.
-Deny Ignorance, Embrace Truth-

I define a Conspiracy Theorist as a person who digs through lies to find hidden truths. Too often, people go down a rabbit hole based on lies and ignorance and ignore the evidence staring them in the face that would lead them to the truth. To defend against that is to "Deny Ignorance."

[jaded]

Great inquiry!
 

I kinda went a different path with this. Denying Ignorance implies you didn't know either till you looked into it. Someone said something interesting so you learned about it. In discussing your thoughts it assists your own clarity. 

Maybe you're right, maybe your mistaken, maybe your prior experience with a topic is now outdated since new information comes to light faster than it ever has. Either way Denying Ignorance is a path to clarity. 

While the word belief gets pretty maligned for good cause, it also happens that someone can stagger thru a topic with epic levels of bad logic, faulty arguments yet still manage to get the crux of a topic or issue nailed down accurately. They believed they were correct despite not getting there the way anyone else would have. This elusive clarity really only comes thru discussion with others who are also interested in the topic/issue, with the politeness and the patience too let others express their idea's as best they can. 

Deny Ignorance as a quick snark-fest began yrs ago with the meme of someone banging their head on a keyboard as blood spurted cause "Someone on the internet is WRONG!!!" Thankfully we've grown past that as the internet also grew up. (It's still hilarious!!!) 

Basically I see denying ignorance as a way to sharpen my own thoughts, get my points poked full of holes if I'm lost in the weeds an occasionally maybe be of help if I know something. It's anything BUT negative!