Willed Ignorance
Willed ignorance, as described here, is a refusal to examine a belief or engage with a challenge to it. The author presents it as a way to shut down discussion rather than a specific error in an inference.
THE IDEA
2.9 WILLED IGNORANCE
More of a diversionary tactic than a logical fallacy, willed ignorance remains a common response to rational argumentation. Willed ignorance occurs when one simply refuses to engage in logical discourse or critical thinking, maintaining that his or her beliefs about the issue are the final and absolute answer. This often occurs in scientific, political, or religious discussions. For example:
-
Person A: It seems to me that there are contradictions in the New Testament regarding the status and role of women. Person B: Well, what the Bible says is true, and that’s that—end of conversation!
-
Person A: There seem to be some inconsistencies in Einstein’s theory of relativity. Person B: Einstein was a genius, and what he said is indisputable, period.
-
Person A: After reading The Republic, I believe that Plato is endorsing fascism. Person B: You have no idea what you are talking about, and I will not discuss Plato’s work with you.
Willed ignorance is simply an inflexible, uncritical, unquestioning attitude that refuses to listen to the other side of an argument. A fundamental prerequisite for critical thinking is the ability to carefully and patiently consider various alternatives to the issue at hand. Critical thinking requires reflection and analysis of various viewpoints. This does not mean that all positions are correct—not at all! This simply means that one should avoid willed ignorance, and instead carefully analyze all arguments.
When to use it
Identifying when a debate partner is unwilling to consider evidence, so you can decide whether to continue or change approach.
Self-checking before a heated discussion to ensure you are not dismissing counterarguments out of hand.
Teaching critical thinking skills by warning against the uncritical acceptance of authority or dogma.
Analyzing public discourse or media debates to spot instances where willed ignorance hinders productive conversation.
FROM THEORY TO EVERYDAY LIFE
In practice
Religious discussion
Person A: It seems to me that there are contradictions in the New Testament regarding the status and role of women. Person B: Well, what the Bible says is true, and that’s that—end of conversation!
Scientific discussion
Person A: There seem to be some inconsistencies in Einstein’s theory of relativity. Person B: Einstein was a genius, and what he said is indisputable, period.
Philosophical discussion
Person A: After reading The Republic, I believe that Plato is endorsing fascism. Person B: You have no idea what you are talking about, and I will not discuss Plato’s work with you.
A MOMENT TO REFLECT
Put it to work.
Can you recall a time when you or someone else refused to consider an opposing viewpoint? What was the outcome?
How might you recognize willed ignorance in your own thinking and take steps to remain open to alternative arguments?
In what areas of your life (e.g., politics, religion, science) are you most tempted to shut down discussion? How could you instead engage critically?
CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION
Source texts
- Informal Logical Fallacies A Brief Guide