Award against... Stupidity?

[skakos]

I was just reading about the "Award for Contributions in the Fight Against Stupidity".

See https://philosophynow.org/award or https://philosophynow.org/issues/87/Against_Stupidity.

Are we serious now? Really?!?
What is "poor reasoning"? Based on what criteria?
Who defines "assumptions" and how do you get to "examine" them in a non-stupid way?

Although I understand the overall goal of the award may be noble - to encourage thinking - the underlying principles and the title are completely wrong. Calling names on the things others believe is really dangerous. The line separating honest criticism and simple offense is a thin one. Without the existence of specific objective criteria on which the award is awarded I would expect a more mild language used as the title of the award. Something that does not discriminates between "clever" and "stupid". As the article in PN (see above) says, even great scientists make assumptions that later on seem stupid. (the same applies for philosophers as well - is the idea of "Ideas" of Plato stupid or not?) But calling them "stupid" is not appropriate. Science moves on with assumptions. And so does philosophy and every other sector of human thinking. Axioms and Principles are always the basis of all theories - philosophical ones and scientific ones alike.

Just a thought. It may be stupid.

[spike]

Just a thought. It may be stupid.

It's not stupid! it's on target!

[skakos]

Thanks, maybe you can nominate me for the next award!

[alpha]

in the articles to which you linked, i didn't see anything about calling people who disagree with them "stupid". it's basically just an award given to people who inspire thinking.

[skakos]

The TITLE speaks about stupidity man.
The award's title.
What else do you want?

[alpha]

don't judge something by its title.

[spike]

It should be an award for fighting for Awareness, not for fighting against Stupidity. But stupidity is more primal and garners more attention.

[Skip]

In an age of aggressive political, religious and commercial cultivation of stupidity, calling it anything else would be pandering.
No person is being called stupid.
The state or condition of stupidity is being challenged.
If you have a vested interest in preserving stupidity, you are being challenged.

[skakos]

Calling opinions "stupid" is dangerous.
Which are stupid opinions in your (clever?) opinion?

[Risto]

I agree that the word can be offensive. If you replaced the word "stupidity" with "bad reasoning", would it be better? Then again, it's a very dramatic word and brings attention, which is what a title is supposed to do, isn't?

[skakos]

It is obvious that this is the reason behind that.
Or at least I HOPE this is the only reason.
Nowadays there is much discussion going on about how religious people are stupid, illiterate or even "sick" that needs to be "cured"...

[Ansiktsburk]

In a way I fully agree with your OP, Skakos. But in a way completely not. if I consider my own thoughts and reasonings, they vary very much in "quality". When I really want to find out the truth about something I am not ashamed. but when I do reasoning just for the h*ll of it, to fit in, or tho make my own finacial position better, thats "stupid". So I would not say that anyone is left out. When you strive for justified true belief, anything goes. But not when you push for a political standpoint, just because it's advantageous for your life and wallet.

[skakos]

I am not really getting your point. Of course we should all strive for knowledge and the "truth" (if such a thing even exists). But what does that have to do with how we characterize the opinion of others? I would refrain from calling the opinion of anyone "stupid" especially in such a public manner. (let alone to establish an AWARD with that title) Sometimes the way you name things hint on your own dogmatism. I really try to find "stupid" opinions in philosophy...

[alpha]

I am not really getting your point. Of course we should all strive for knowledge and the "truth" (if such a thing even exists). But what does that have to do with how we characterize the opinion of others? I would refrain from calling the opinion of anyone "stupid" especially in such a public manner. (let alone to establish an AWARD with that title) Sometimes the way you name things hint on your own dogmatism. I really try to find "stupid" opinions in philosophy...

the award isn't about anyone's opinion. it seems to be about combating ignorance (stupidity), and promoting learning and thinking.

[skakos]

What a noble cause.

So we fight... stupidity but no one is... stupid?