The Big Cat Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 Yes, I do love learning about new things then coming here to discuss them. Yes, I linked to an article discussing agnotology in the thread about Ann Coulter. Yes, it's part of the title for this week's installment of my podcast (see OTW). But, are you guys at all familiar with this concept? Have you ever stopped to think that it informs just about every one of the insurmountable debates on PPP? Most importantly--is there any means (other than overt Orwellian censorship) of curbing it? From Wikipedia: Agnotology, formerly agnatology, is a neologism for the study of culturally-induced ignorance or doubt, particularly the publication of inaccurate or misleading scientific data. The term was coined by Robert N. Proctor,[1][2] a Stanford University professor specializing in the history of science and technology.[3] Its name derives from the Greek word ἀγνῶσις, agnōsis, "not knowing"; and -λογία, -logia.[4] More generally, the term also highlights the increasingly common condition where more knowledge of a subject leaves one more uncertain than before. A prime example of the deliberate production of ignorance cited by Proctor is the tobacco industry's conspiracy to manufacture doubt about the cancer risks of tobacco use. Under the banner of science, the industry produced research about everything except tobacco hazards to exploit public uncertainty.[4][5] Some of the root causes for culturally-induced ignorance are media neglect, corporate or governmental secrecy and suppression, document destruction, and myriad forms of inherent or avoidable culturopolitical selectivity, inattention, and forgetfulness.[6] Agnotology also focuses on how and why diverse forms of knowledge do not "come to be," or are ignored or delayed. For example, knowledge about plate tectonics was delayed for at least a decade because key evidence was classified military information related to underseas warfare. Dr. Proctor was quoted using the term to describe his research "only half jokingly," as "agnatology" in a 2001 interview about his lapidary work with the colorful rock agate. He connected the two seemingly unrelated topics by noting the lack of geologic knowledge and study of agate since its first known description by Theophrastus in 300 BC, relative to the extensive research on other rocks and minerals such as diamonds, asbestos, granite, and coal, all of which have much higher commercial value. He said agate was a "victim of scientific disinterest," the same "structured apathy" he called "the social construction of ignorance."[7] He was later quoted as calling it "agnotology, the study of ignorance," in a 2003 New York Times story on medical historians testifying as expert witnesses.[8] In 2004, his wife, Londa Schiebinger,[9] also a science history professor, gave a more precise definition of agnotology in a paper on eighteenth-century voyages of scientific discovery and gender relations, and contrasted it with epistemology, the theory of knowledge, saying that the latter questions how we know while the former questions why we do not know: "Ignorance is often not merely the absence of knowledge but an outcome of cultural and political struggle."[10] The couple co-organized a pair of events, first a workshop at the Pennsylvania State University in 2003 titled “Agnatology: The Cultural Production of Ignorance”,[11] and later a conference at Stanford University in 2005 titled “Agnotology: The Cultural Production of Ignorance”.[6] A similar word from the same Greek roots, agnoiology, meaning "the science or study of ignorance, which determines its quality and conditions"[12] or "the doctrine concerning those things of which we are necessarily ignorant"[13] describes a branch of philosophy studied by James Frederick Ferrier in the 19th century.[14] Wiki-link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 Sounds just like democrats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted January 30, 2009 Author Share Posted January 30, 2009 Sounds just like democrats. More stunning insight. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 More stunning insight. Thank you. Call 'em as I see 'em. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted January 30, 2009 Author Share Posted January 30, 2009 Call 'em as I see 'em. Yeah, we all know how you see things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 Doesn't this concept already exist in the form of FUD? Fear Uncertainty Doubt FUD (FUD) 1.Noun. The excretion of individuals who either disagree with, or stand to lose something due to, the current plan or policy. The FUD they excrete can rarely be traced to the actual merits or designs of the plan/policy in question. FUD is almost always the waste product of a person's ulterior motive. Used in a sentence: "The Republicans are currently spreading some FUD with regard to Obama's economic plan." or "The Democrats, instead of getting elected based on their merits or actually doing something useful, have done nothing but spread FUD for the last 8 years. The Republicans were unable or unwilling to clean up all the FUD, and therefore lost elections." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 Sounds like one of the principles that The Goracle used to found his new religion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts