55 thoughts on “How Can Truth Prevail?

  1. Mung: This may be true. It may be false. Gregory thinks it is true. It must be true.

    You send them money.

  2. Mung: I’m more interested in how morality and truth are related. So many people here at TSZ think the two are related, but seem incapable of explaining why.

    There is nothing immoral about making false statements.

    Do you agree or disagree and why?

    Well, a lot would depend on how we specify the case, right? Are we talking about lying (deliberately making a statement known to be false)? Or bullshitting (deliberately making a statement without regard to whether it is true or false)? Or making a claim that one sincerely believes is true, although it is not?

    In the latter case, there would be distinctions between culpable and inculpable ignorance — and culpability probably involves various dimensions as well. In what Charles Mills calls “the epistemology of ignorance,” White ignorance of the history of Black culture, art, religion, literature etc is part of how White dominance in American culture is reproduced across generations.

    The epistemology of ignorance is probably a version of what’s called “motivated ignorance”, where ignorance is driven by an active denial of knowledge because knowledge would lead to unwanted psychic conflict. (A good example of motivated ignorance is the person who loves eating meat and therefore actively avoids learning about animal suffering in factory farms.)

    Motivated ignorance is surely culpable, but the culpability would need to be evaluated with some care and finesse, since moralizing would be counter-productive. (Badgering a meat-eater about their consumption habits and making them feel guilty will lead to them becoming defensive, not changing their behavior.)

    Then again, not all ignorance is motivated or culpable — there are lots of cases where someone says something that’s false, just because that’s what they’ve always been taught, and they don’t have access to information that contradicts it, and they have no reasons to question what they’ve been told. In cases like that it’s hard for me to see how they are doing something immoral by making a false claim.

  3. Mung: This may be true. It may be false. Gregory thinks it is true. It must be true.

    If you’d just speak openly, there’d be no need to “play both sides” like you now do, Mung. It’s on you to clear things up, as usual, to quit your sealioning and talk straight. But since you’re apparently still a closet IDist, who can’t let go of the Discovery Institute’s “fake” theory used as weaponized theistic science apologetics (which you seem to LOVE as a jaded evangelical protestant proselytizing tool), you refuse to speak openly. This makes your views irrelevant, Mung, though predictable. Once an IDist, now can’t let that “precious” go?

    Following Brian Miller regarding “truth” is bound to shrink & compromise your thinking, Mung. You haven’t looked the man in the eyes & seen the “fake” “ID apologetics” he is pushing as “strictly science”. It doesn’t seem you’ve looked in the mirror recently in this regard either, posturing “Mung”.

  4. In short, computer programmer Mung with no training in science has confused “ID theory” with “truth”. The rabbit hole falls out from under one’s feet going that route. It’s a Seattle seduction, one that apparently Mung is going to wrap up and spread to his relatives under the Christmas tree.


Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.