Philosophy Now Forum

Is it possible to create a science on ignorance? While of course it is perfectly possible to study any aspect of not knowing, I also know that any science without a coherent structure and body to it is a weak science. It all starts at: what is ignorance in depth, in reality? How is it like? My need for such a science is bound to my development of the Ability-Graph and detailing of Need-Space. You see, on the Ability-Graph, there are both known and unknown factors which are counted in the cost (the depraving of "insurance", the "uninsurance" factor), the unknown factor is of course the one I'm interested in here, and specifically, I'm interested in "what is it that is at the same time Important and ignorance?", normally we would have to know something to know whether it is Important or not, but how do you know when you are about calculating a movement from one state of circumstance-and-being to another?

Do we work with traces? Or are there own constants or limited variables that can provide us with necessary information to make a judgement of the value of unknown impacts?

.







...................................................................................











Don't know what you are trying to say but I defend your right to say it.


I pride myself on being pretty much ignorant upon just about everything, so um, yeah, I...I think I have it down to a science.


And I am proud to say I am totally ignorant of a Need-Space and an Ability-Graph. So,...I believe I am qualified to say that I am an expert upon those two subjects. I think.



So, I believe this is an important thread upon the very important need of ignorance.



And don't worry about the Need-Space and an Ability-Graph thingy. It's probably a good idea but it won't make any sense in our shared insanity.










.

The Voice of Time wrote:Is it possible to create a science on ignorance?

Perhaps I've missed your point, but don't you think that acknowledging ignorance is the reason for science?

uwot wrote:

The Voice of Time wrote:Is it possible to create a science on ignorance?

Perhaps I've missed your point, but don't you think that acknowledging ignorance is the reason for science?

Yes, but I don't see what that got to do with the original post.

*bump*

Where is the interest in taking on a challenging topic? Am I alone in finding it fascinating to try and penetrate things that are difficult to understand?

Science is the knowledge of the structure of fictional reality.there for to understand things in that light of science alone is.poverty

jackles wrote:Science is the knowledge of the structure of fictional reality.there for to understand things in that light of science alone is.poverty

Are we in the mood for randomness today?

It has been studied long ago, and conclusions was made into such things as "mob rule" which should be avoided at all cost.

Ignorent people tend to make decitions based on emotions and compulsions which is very dangerous, contrary intellectual people who made their reasoning and actions based on intellectual thoughts.
Even if people are knowledgeable and enlighten they will get hysterically when their dearest values are attacked.

The Wisdom of Solomon (The 2 mothers and the baby) is a good example of showing peoples ignorence and naivity.

In this thread the answer I sought for was more one of a mathematical kind, more specifically, I was interested in finding ways to calculate the value of the unknown in relation to any circumstance. I later found some interesting aspects that could put me on a path to more accurate mathematical knowledge about this, I wrote about it in this thread: viewtopic.php?f=26&t=11694