Ignorance and Apathy

[PaperLuigi]

I'd venture to say that an apathetic hateful person is preferable over an ignorant one.

[Turtlekid1]

Coming back to this thread now, I think I would say that apathy is worse because ignorance is easier to cure (assuming it's actual ignorance and not bias).

[PaperLuigi]

assuming it's actual ignorance and not bias.

A bias is an inclination to present or hold a partial perspective without empirical evidence or knowledge. So I would say that the two exist in an interrelated causal relationship where bias is understood as a consequence of ignorance.

Just my two cents.

[Turtlekid1]

I guess I should have worded that as "assuming it's solely ignorance without bias as a factor."  Bias will often outlive genuine ignorance.

[PaperLuigi]

Is it really a bias though if there's no ignorance involved? I'd call it a sound stance in that case.

[Turtlekid1]

Even if it's incorrect?

[PaperLuigi]

A sound stance is correct. An incorrect stance is a bias and is therefore ignorant.

So if I postulate that two plus two equals five, I am biased because my position has no empirical evidence to support it. A biased position would be one based entirely on feeling (at least according to Richard Dworkin).

[Turtlekid1]

What I'm saying is that ignorance causes bias, but bias, being based only on feeling, will often override knowledge.  Ignorance does not equal bias, though.  You can be honestly ignorant without being biased, and you can be biased in one direction even if you know the other is correct.

[PaperLuigi]

What I'm saying is that ignorance causes bias, but bias, being based only on feeling, will often override knowledge. 

You're correct in asserting that feelings sometime get in the way of what we know to be true. You're confusing bias with deception though.

Ignorance does not equal bias, though.  You can be honestly ignorant without being biased

Does that person have no worldviews then? Biases are essentially positions that arise out of ignorance.

you can be biased in one direction even if you know the other is correct.

I'd call that being intentionally deceptive. If I understand four to be the product of two times two, yet I claim that it's not, it's not a bias.

[Turtlekid1]

Bias is basically self-deception, so that's not inaccurate.

[PaperLuigi]

A biased person lacks any knowledge whatsoever as opposed to the self-deceiver who is more or less knowledgeable of something yet chooses to deny the truth of it anyway.

[Turtlekid1]

So it really depends on how you define "biased."

[Insane Steve]

Ignorance isn't that hard to cure.
Apathy is a bit harder.
Bias is nigh impossible to cure.

[Black Mage]

A biased person lacks any knowledge whatsoever as opposed to the self-deceiver who is more or less knowledgeable of something yet chooses to deny the truth of it anyway.

The word "bias" has nothing to do with ignorance or a lack of knowledge. You can become biased by being ignorant, but the word itself doesn't imply ignorance.

[A]

Biases lead you to conclusions regardless of the evidence. Bias cannot be cured with information alone, as that new information will only be used as more fuel for the same conclusions. If one means to treat bias with information, it must at least be a carefully-planned surgical strike of information, yo.

Of course, if the person is apathetic, it won't matter what information you give them.