Originally Posted by Ocean
I would hope you will grant this is not an either/or possibility. There are multiple points in between. There's no need for trade offs.
Accepting that there are undesirable extremes is fine. Embracing one extreme (exultation of ignorance) and making it appear as virtuous is what bothers me. It's regressive and brutish.
When "the facts" are subject of debate ignorance might be bliss. Better still would be 'informed skepticism'.
I did not realize at first that this was a discussion about global warming, but even in that case being a skeptic or being partial to skepticism does not mean embracing or praising ignorance, does it?