What the mods do and don't do: Someone is wrong on the internet!

[studiot]

 

I believe it is also used pejoratively, which means some people may misunderstand when it is used correctly.

 

 

Agreed, those ignorant of the English Language are ignorant of the difference between ignorant and ignoramus. +1

[CharonY]

It appears that there is a general agreement that pointing to someone's ignorance on a subject matter is not a bad thing, in fact, from an educational standpoint I see it as essential. Often, one has certain preconceptions on a given topic and in many cases the starting point of a discussion is an extrapolation from erroneous premise. Typically this is followed by pointing out the inaccuracies of the premise. At this point there are two options. Either OP revisits the premise by reading up on the subject matter using keywords provided in the comment, or OP insists on the fact that the premise must be correct.

The latter is clearly the result of ignorance on the subject and has to be pointed out. Half of the work of introductory courses (arguably more than that) is not to provide basic definitions, but rather to erase misconceptions obtained in high school, which are based on necessary simplifications and narratives. Topics like evolution come to mind where many will have strong sense of understanding, while missing out the intricacies of the subject. Ideally, one would try to clear up all the misconceptions in a post, but considering the time and effort required to teach a subject it is not really feasible. From what I can see, almost any call of ignorance from resident experts or moderators is accompanied by keywords or links for further information.

I would be shocked if there are cases were calls to ignorance handled in that way would be moderated.

[Endy0816]

I just don't like to become mired down in a definitions debate, requires factoring in changing common meaning and geographical region. Easier to pick a presently innocuous word instead.

[swansont]

The bigger picture here is that of someone thinks they've been slighted, the proper procedure is to report the post rather than getting mired in a tangential discussion. Or ignore it, and not get mired in a tangential discussion.

[Phi for All]

I just don't like to become mired down in a definitions debate, requires factoring in changing common meaning and geographical region. Easier to pick a presently innocuous word instead.

 

Part of the problem is that there are more than one common meaning for many words. Miriam-Webster's online dictionary (a popular if not a very good reference) has an entry for ignorant that reads: "resulting from or showing lack of knowledge or intelligence". Some read that as ignorant = stupid.

 

I don't like limiting the words we can use if we can help it. What some consider innocuous, others may not. I'd prefer to define the words better, and make sure everyone understands the definitions we're using. How many pages of dreck have we wasted on explaining what "theory" and "logic" really mean?

[StringJunky]

Ignorant can also mean wilfully not paying attention: "Listen to me! Why are you being ignorant?". It can imply wilfulness as well as naivete.

Edited December 18, 2014 by StringJunky

[Arete]

I would think:

"Well, she has me pegged. I may be able to learn something here."

 

 

 

I think in many cases this applies to ignorance as well as stupidity. Most of us will learn a little about a topic and think we understand it well. You then learn a little more and discover the true depth of the field and how little you actually know. With posters here who are very confident in interpretations of science that, to a person with a good knowledge of the field are obviously wrong, are in this first step - they did a course on physics/biology/etc. or read a popular science book, and the basic idea "clicked" for them. They think they "get it" and often they do get the basic idea, but their understanding is based on a caricature of the actual concept, and the unintuitive nuances that are understood by people with more experience in the field appear wrong/contradictory to them.

 

Combine this with the prevailing inability of us all to admit we are wrong on the internet, and you see people arguing from an obviously wrong position, digging a deeper and deeper hole - it's always hard to know when a mod should step in to pull the plug, particularly when the tone remains civil.

Edited December 18, 2014 by Arete

[imatfaal]

"...almost the entirety of Fox News." Brilliant

[EdEarl]

 

Wikipedia

In Western folklore, foxes are depicted as a symbol of cunning and trickery.

Fox News is appropriately named; I'm surprised they have not changed it. Forgive me for the OT comment.

[Ten oz]

Context is critical. For example calling someone ignorant sarcastically may actually be a compliment. What matters is the intent. Are posters purposefully choosing specific words to slight each other or advance discussion. The difference can often be subtle and posters who prefer to argue against style over substance look to latch on to such oportunities.

[MigL]

I think ( opinion ) the point being made is that the term, while accurate, can be interpreted different ways, especially by those who are 'English challenged'. A lot of times it can be taken as an offensive insult, since offence is in 'the eye of the beholder' and not in the intent of the offender.

We make similar allowances for words that are no longer 'fashionable' or whose meaning has evolved over the yrs. to be more negative.

 

Surely we as a group, being ( or considering ourselves ) fairly intelligent, can come up with other words to convey the meaning 'ignorance of a subject', so as not to make matters worse by ( unknowingly ) insulting the poster.

[zapatos]

It is also important to remember that communication is a two way street. While it is important for the speaker to attempt to not offend, it is also important for the listener to attempt to not take offense. In written communication you lose intonation, speed of delivery, body language, etc. Dialogue that takes place through written word only is easily misinterpreted. The listener would do well to not take offense at a perceived insult, and wait instead until the speaker unambiguously calls you a sniveling little rat-faced troll.

[Ophiolite]

Surely we as a group, being ( or considering ourselves ) fairly intelligent, can come up with other words to convey the meaning 'ignorance of a subject', so as not to make matters worse by ( unknowingly ) insulting the poster.

This sounds like a reasonable approach and I concede it may even be the right one. However, for me appropriate use of the word ignorance is in the same set as appropriate use of the word theory. If we have to dumb down our responses to the point that the language is in danger of being corrupted then we are failing in any duty we feel we have to educate.

[EdEarl]

Teaching K-5 special ed students is different from post-doc students. Although this forum doesn't have that broad a spectrum of members, it does have a wide range of people with varying education and experience. I suspect all of us vary our communication style to meet the needs of various members. IMO such variance is not dumbing down, but being smart enough to tailor communication to an audience, which requires careful crafting that not everyone can do.

[Acme]

I was going to post this in "Comments on moderation" but since that is a locked thread there can be no ...

Every so often we will get a reported post with a comment along the lines of "This person is wrong. You mods should do something about that"

...

Moderators enforce the rules. ...

You are well within the purview of the rules and your authority to do something about wrongitudinalityness.

4.The use of logical fallacies to prove a point is prohibited. The use of fallacies undermines an argument, and the constant use of them is simply irritating. ...

Whaaaaaa! They called people irritating! Shouldn't that read 'simply causing a physiological response to a stimulus'?

 

...

I don't like limiting the words we can use if we can help it. What some consider innocuous, others may not. I'd prefer to define the words better, and make sure everyone understands the definitions we're using. How many pages of dreck have we wasted on explaining what "theory" and "logic" really mean?

Here here! Don't cosset the ignorant.

[Phi for All]

Surely we as a group, being ( or considering ourselves ) fairly intelligent, can come up with other words to convey the meaning 'ignorance of a subject', so as not to make matters worse by ( unknowingly ) insulting the poster.

 

As I said before, if you come up with other words that some find less offensive than "ignorant", someone else will take offense at the new words. Wouldn't it be better to all be on the same page, using the same definitions, so we could all know that when the term "evolution" is used, we're not talking about how life on Earth began, or that if the term "ignorant" is used, it's referring to a lack of specific knowledge, not a lack of intelligence?

 

It is also important to remember that communication is a two way street. While it is important for the speaker to attempt to not offend, it is also important for the listener to attempt to not take offense. In written communication you lose intonation, speed of delivery, body language, etc. Dialogue that takes place through written word only is easily misinterpreted. The listener would do well to not take offense at a perceived insult, and wait instead until the speaker unambiguously calls you a sniveling little rat-faced troll.

 

ROFL! And even then, report the post and let the mods take offence.

 

This sounds like a reasonable approach and I concede it may even be the right one. However, for me appropriate use of the word ignorance is in the same set as appropriate use of the word theory. If we have to dumb down our responses to the point that the language is in danger of being corrupted then we are failing in any duty we feel we have to educate.

Here here! Don't cosset the ignorant.

 

Didn't we, at some point in the not-so-distant past, discuss using "ignorant" instead of "stupid" because even saying "that's a stupid idea" implied it came from a stupid person?

[Acme]

 

This sounds like a reasonable approach and I concede it may even be the right one. However, for me appropriate use of the word ignorance is in the same set as appropriate use of the word theory. If we have to dumb down our responses to the point that the language is in danger of being corrupted then we are failing in any duty we feel we have to educate.

Here here! Don't cosset the ignorant.

Didn't we, at some point in the not-so-distant past, discuss using "ignorant" instead of "stupid" because even saying "that's a stupid idea" implied it came from a stupid person?

 

Right you are; I amend my statement: Don't cosset the ignorant, or the stupid, or the sniveling little rat-faced trolls.

[swansont]

You are well within the purview of the rules and your authority to do something about wrongitudinalityness.

 

Which rule would I be enforcing?