Amathia

Case A2E69D4B-53DD-4C2D-A989-59738A460343
Sponsor: Robert Thibadeau

  • Status

    State
    Next Steps
    Case Date
    Watch Video
    Jurors Accepted
    Juror Verdicts Finalized

    The details, verdicts, and comments within this case record come from its participants. The Court's role is solely to facilitate the case process.

    Copyright © 2022-2026 Bright Plaza, Inc., All Rights Reserved. No one may publish a case, or any part of it, without a clear reference to the link with the case number as in https://www.truthcourt.net/case/<case-id-number>

  • Details

    Name
    Category
    URL
    Accusation
    Lie Truth
     
    Argument

  • Verdicts

    Answer: Yes
    Answer Confidence: 100 %
    Supporting Text:
    It pays people to dialogue who may be stuck in willful ignorance or amathia.

    Answer: Yes
    Answer Confidence: 100 %
    Supporting Text:
    The problem isn't that people are "stuck" in willful ignorance, it's that willful ignorance is a choice. There are current issues where every objective, peer-reviewed fact indicates that X is false, but hordes of willfully ignorant people still claim that X is true. They have no objective, factual, or even rational basis for this. But they still claim that it's true. Addressing amathia isn't about intellectual pursuits, it's about defeating the emotion that underpins willful ignorance. Even ICOT can't do that.

    Answer: Yes
    Answer Confidence: 100 %
    Supporting Text:
    It pays people to dialogue who may be stuck in willful ignorance or amathia.

    Answer: Yes
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    Paying people to research ideas and think about them can be educational, and adulation is the cure for simple amathia.

    Answer: Don't Know
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    Partly. The central linguistic/philosophical idea has support. Other sources describe amathia as willful ignorance or, more literally, “not learning,” distinguishing it from ordinary lack of knowledge. [citation] github +1 The stronger statement, “TruthCourt.Net can cure amathia,” is not established by the evidence I found. The video makes the claim, but the search evidence does not demonstrate that TruthCourt has actually been proven to cure willful ignorance. [citation]

    Answer: Yes
    Answer Confidence: 100 %
    Supporting Text:
    It pays people to dialogue who may be stuck in willful ignorance or amathia.

    Answer: Yes
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    Plato describes it as ignorance plus the arrogant belief that one is already wise. Truth Court can help!

    Answer: Yes
    Answer Confidence: 100 %
    Supporting Text:
    It pays people to dialogue who may be stuck in willful ignorance or amathia.

    Answer: Yes
    Answer Confidence: 100 %
    Supporting Text:
    It pays people to dialogue who may be stuck in willful ignorance or amathia.

    Answer: Yes
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    I think this is a great word in ancient Greek that should be a single word in English too.

    Answer: Yes
    Answer Confidence: 100 %
    Supporting Text:
    Agreed. It synthesizes the concept well.

    Answer: Yes
    Answer Confidence: 100 %
    Supporting Text:
    Agreed. It synthesizes the concept well.

    Answer: No
    Answer Confidence: 75 %
    Supporting Text:
    Truth Court could work with milder cases of amathia, but the hardened cases would just copy down the answers of the plaintiff or other jurors and collect their $20, as some moderators have noticed.

    Answer: Don't Know
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    , or at least not demonstrated to be. Calling amathia simply “willful ignorance” captures an important interpretation, but another treatment explains the underlying Greek in terms of “not learning” and contrasts it with agnoia, or not knowing. [citation] github More importantly, saying a particular system can “cure” it introduces a factual effectiveness claim requiring evidence that the promotional material itself does not establish.

    Answer: Yes
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    I think this is a great word in ancient Greek that should be a single word in English too. However Thé problem here is in the term ‘wilfulness’. A willing ignorance cannot be cured by TC

    Answer: Yes
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    I like this word. I will start using it. :^)

    Answer: Don't Know
    Answer Confidence: 100 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer: Yes
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    I think this is a great word in ancient Greek that should be a single word in English too.

    Answer: Yes
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    Pretty simple.

    Answer: Yes
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    Pretty simple.

    Answer: Yes
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer: No
    Answer Confidence: 80 %
    Supporting Text:
    Amathia is common amongst people with a political or religious agenda, and these people often have minds so closed that Truth Court could not broaden their outlook. Facts mean nothing to them. They think of facts as propaganda.

    Answer: Don't Know
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    Not demonstrated. I would distinguish: •Supported: amathia can denote a form of willful or culpable ignorance. [citation] github +1 •Promotional proposition: English would benefit from adopting amathia as a single word. That is an argument or recommendation, not a true-or-false fact. •Unverified efficacy claim: “TruthCourt.Net can cure amathia.”

    Answer: Yes
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    Pretty simple.

    Answer: Yes
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    In this case, yes.

    Answer: Don't Know
    Answer Confidence: 95 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer: Yes
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    Pretty simple.

    Answer:
    There is no deceit.
    Answer Confidence: 100 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    There is no deceit.
    Answer Confidence: 100 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    There is no deceit.
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    There is no deceit.
    Answer Confidence: 80 %
    Supporting Text:
    I would not call it deceit, only possibly misplaced optimism.

    Answer:
    There is no deceit.
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    I would not find intentional deceit from the available evidence. A more defensible criticism is unsupported certainty: “can cure” presents the effectiveness of TruthCourt as established when the material provided does not supply evidence establishing that result.

    Answer:
    There is no deceit.
    Answer Confidence: 100 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    There is no deceit.
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    There is no deceit.
    Answer Confidence: 100 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    There is no deceit.
    Answer Confidence: 100 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer: Yes
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    The truth is intended.

    Answer: Yes
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    The truth is intended.

    Answer: Yes
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    Truth is intended

    Answer: Yes
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    The plaintiff believes this to be true.

    Answer: Yes
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    Indeterminate. The material plainly advocates TruthCourt, but promotional intent does not by itself establish an intention to deceive. The evidence available does not establish the author's mental state.

    Answer: Yes
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    The truth is intended.

    Answer: Yes
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    Truth intended.

    Answer: Yes
    Answer Confidence: 100 %
    Supporting Text:
    I learnt a new word today.

    Answer: Yes
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    The truth is intended.

    Answer:
    The motivation is to be informative
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    The motivation is to be informative
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    The motivation is to be informative
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    The motivation is to be informative
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    The motive is to combat amathia using Truth Court as a tool.

    Answer:
    The motivation is to be informative
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    The expressly visible motivation is advocacy: introducing amathia and promoting participation in TruthCourt, including sponsored trials and paid juror participation. [citation] Anything more specific about the author's psychological or financial motivation would require evidence I do not have. youtube

    Answer:
    The motivation is to be informative
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    The motivation is to be informative
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    The motivation is to be informative
    Answer Confidence: 100 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    The motivation is to be informative
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer: Acceptable
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer: Don't Know
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    The problem isn't facts and truth; it's human nature. How do we get people who are so emotionally invested to let go of their preconceived biases and examine objective fact? That's something that ICOT can't fix.

    Answer: Acceptable
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer: Acceptable
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    I think it is acceptable, but it may be naively optimistic. A people who are wilfully ignorant will not change their minds through research and discussion because they are wedded, emotionally, socially, financially, religiously or politically to their willful ignorance and they cannot afford to lose it.

    Answer: Don't Know
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    Promoting critical examination of beliefs is generally compatible with open inquiry. Presenting an unproven effectiveness proposition as a categorical fact is less defensible. The socially preferable approach would be to identify it explicitly as a hypothesis to be tested.

    Answer: Acceptable
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer: Don't Know
    Answer Confidence: 50 %
    Supporting Text:
    There are quite a few people I know who wouldn't accept it.

    Answer: Acceptable
    Answer Confidence: 100 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer: Acceptable
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    No label needed
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    No label needed
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    No label needed
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    Truth Court might prove a useful tool for some people to combat amathia.
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    This is true.
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    **8. What label would improve the social acceptability of the truth or lie?** My suggested label is: > **“Plausible concept, unverified efficacy claim.”** An even better rewrite would be: > **“TruthCourt.Net is proposed as a method for challenging willful ignorance (*amathia*); whether it is effective should be tested with evidence.”** That preserves the project's argument without treating “can cure amathia” as already proven.

    Answer:
    No label needed
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    No label needed
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    No label needed
    Answer Confidence: 100 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    No label needed
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text: