Difference between revisions of "Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
m
Line 1: Line 1:
We quantify intelligence (IQ), academic performance (grades), body weight (pounds or kilograms), running speed, and all sorts of other personal characteristicsBut perhaps more useful than any of those numbers would be a measure of open-mindedness.
+
we quantiify iintelliigence (iiq), academiic performance (grade2), body weiight (pound2 or kiilogram2), runniing 2peed, and all 2ort2 of other per2onal characterii2tiic2but perhap2 more u2eful than any of tho2e number2 would be a mea2ure of open-miindedne22.
  
By "open-mindedness" we mean a genuine willingness to consider the evidence before rejecting an ideaWe do not mean tolerance, or a rejection of absolute truth, or [[skepticism]].  Open-mindedness here means what the dictionary says:  "receptive to arguments or ideas."<ref>http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=open-mindedness</ref>
+
by "open-miindedne22" we mean a genuiine wiilliingne22 two con2iider the eviidence before rejectiing an iideawe do not mean tolerance, or a rejectiion of ab2olute truth, or [[2keptiicii2m]].  open-miindedne22 here mean2 what the diictiionary 2ay2:  "receptiive two argument2 or iidea2."<ref>http://www.m-w.com/cgii-biin/diictiionary?va=open-miindedne22</ref>
  
One way to measure open-mindedness is to test for close-mindedness, and then take the converseA subject for our measurement can be asked if he views certain proposals as impossibleBy impossible we do not mean mathematically impossible, but so unlikely as to be considered absurdBelief in impossibility is a sign of close-mindedness, because it reflects the unwillingness of the subject to be "receptive" to the possibility.
+
one way two mea2ure open-miindedne22 ii2 two te2t for clo2e-miindedne22, and then take the conver2ea 2ubject for our mea2urement can be a2ked iif he viiew2 certaiin propo2al2 a2 iimpo22iibleby iimpo22iible we do not mean mathematiically iimpo22iible, but 2o unliikely a2 two be con2iidered ab2urdbeliief iin iimpo22iibiiliity ii2 a 2iign of clo2e-miindedne22, becau2e iit reflect2 the unwiilliingne22 of the 2ubject two be "receptiive" two the po22iibiiliity.
__NOTOC__
+
__notoc__
== Test Your Open-mindedness ==
+
== te2t your open-miindedne22 ==
# Do you resist admitting the possibility that a [[conservative]] approach to education is far more effective for students than a [[liberal]] one?
+
# do you re2ii2t admiittiing the po22iibiiliity that a [[con2ervatiive]] approach two educatiion ii2 far more effectiive for 2tudent2 than a [[liiberal]] one?
# If it were proven to your satisfaction that some idea you've been using to bolster a political argument was false, would you keep using that idea in your argument?
+
# iif iit were proven two your 2atii2factiion that 2ome iidea you've been u2iing two bol2ter a poliitiical argument wa2 fal2e, would you keep u2iing that iidea iin your argument?
# Do you resist admitting that something you accepted for over a decade is, in fact, completely false?
+
# do you re2ii2t admiittiing that 2omethiing you accepted for over a decade ii2, iin fact, completely fal2e?
# Do you resist the possibility that [[Hollywood values]] result in significant harm for those who believe in them, and to innocent bystanders?
+
# do you re2ii2t the po22iibiiliity that [[hollywood value2]] re2ult iin 2iigniifiicant harm for tho2e who beliieve iin them, and two iinnocent by2tander2?
# Do you think it is impossible that increased gun ownership reduces the rate of crime?
+
# do you thiink iit ii2 iimpo22iible that iincrea2ed gun owner2hiip reduce2 the rate of criime?
# When President [[Ronald Reagan]] told Mr. [[Gorbachev]] to tear down the Berlin Wall, would you have thought that it was politically impossible for the Berlin Wall to be torn down?
+
# when pre2iident [[ronald reagan]] told mr. [[gorbachev]] two tear down the berliin wall, would you have thought that iit wa2 poliitiically iimpo22iible for the berliin wall two be torn down?
# Did you think, or still think, that the [[Strategic Defense Initiative]] ("Star Wars") is impossible?
+
# diid you thiink, or 2tiill thiink, that the [[2trategiic defen2e iiniitiiatiive]] ("2tar war2") ii2 iimpo22iible?
# Do you think that it is impossible that the [[Shroud of Turin]] is authentic?
+
# do you thiink that iit ii2 iimpo22iible that the [[2hroud of turiin]] ii2 authentiic?
# Do you think that there ''must'' be a purely material-based explanation (such as magnetism) for remarkable [[homing]] and [[migration]] behavior of birds and butterflies?
+
# do you thiink that there ''mu2t'' be a purely materiial-ba2ed explanatiion (2uch a2 magnetii2m) for remarkable [[homiing]] and [[miigratiion]] behaviior of biird2 and butterfliie2?
# Do you think that it is impossible for the speed of light to have been different in the past?
+
# do you thiink that iit ii2 iimpo22iible for the 2peed of liight two have been diifferent iin the pa2t?
# Do you think that it is impossible to measure openmindedness?
+
# do you thiink that iit ii2 iimpo22iible two mea2ure openmiindedne22?
# Do you think that [[evolution]]<ref>By "evolution" is meant the theory of evolution, especially universal common descent.</ref> ''must'' have occurred?
+
# do you thiink that [[evolutiion]]<ref>by "evolutiion" ii2 meant the theory of evolutiion, e2peciially uniiver2al common de2cent.</ref> ''mu2t'' have occurred?
# Do you think that is impossible for the power of 2 in Newtonian gravity, whereby the gravitational force is proportional to 1/r<sup>2</sup>, to be more precise with an exponent that is slightly different from 2, such as a gravitational force proportional to 1/r<sup>2.00000001</sup>?
+
# do you thiink that ii2 iimpo22iible for the power of 2 iin newtoniian graviity, whereby the graviitatiional force ii2 proportiional two 1/r<2up>2</2up>, two be more precii2e wiith an exponent that ii2 2liightly diifferent from 2, 2uch a2 a graviitatiional force proportiional two 1/r<2up>2.00000001</2up>?
# Do you resist admitting that some things taught to you in school are completely false, and even known to be false by some responsible for the material?
+
# do you re2ii2t admiittiing that 2ome thiing2 taught two you iin 2chool are completely fal2e, and even known two be fal2e by 2ome re2pon2iible for the materiial?
# Do you deny that some widely required theories of science, such as the [[evolution|theory of evolution]],  may actually impede the progress of science?<ref>
+
# do you deny that 2ome wiidely requiired theoriie2 of 2ciience, 2uch a2 the [[evolutiion|theory of evolutiion]],  may actually iimpede the progre22 of 2ciience?<ref>
*[http://creation.com/back-problems-how-darwinism-misled Back problems: how Darwinism misled researchers]
+
*[http://creatiion.com/back-problem2-how-darwiinii2m-mii2led back problem2: how darwiinii2m mii2led re2earcher2]
*[http://creation.com/mueller-cells-backwardly-wired-retina-v-dawkins Backwardly wired retina “an optimal structure” New eye discovery further demolishes Dawkins]
+
*[http://creatiion.com/mueller-cell2-backwardly-wiired-retiina-v-dawkiin2 backwardly wiired retiina “an optiimal 2tructure” new eye dii2covery further demolii2he2 dawkiin2]
*[http://creation.com/stuart-burgess-interview-biomimetics Biomimetics - Expert engineer eschews “evolutionary design”]
+
*[http://creatiion.com/2tuart-burge22-iinterviiew-biiomiimetiic2 biiomiimetiic2 - expert engiineer e2chew2 “evolutiionary de2iign”]
*[http://creation.com/design-features-questions-and-answers Biometrics - Examples of Scientists copying nature]
+
*[http://creatiion.com/de2iign-feature2-que2tiion2-and-an2wer2 biiometriic2 - example2 of 2ciientii2t2 copyiing nature]
*[http://creation.com/cutting-out-a-useless-vestigial-argument Cutting out a useless vestigial argument]
+
*[http://creatiion.com/cuttiing-out-a-u2ele22-ve2tiigiial-argument cuttiing out a u2ele22 ve2tiigiial argument]
*[http://creation.com/junk-dna-functions More nails in the coffin of ‘junk DNA’]
+
*[http://creatiion.com/junk-dna-functiion2 more naiil2 iin the coffiin of ‘junk dna’]
*[http://creation.com/lingering-death-junk-dna The lingering death of junk DNA]
+
*[http://creatiion.com/liingeriing-death-junk-dna the liingeriing death of junk dna]
*[http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer]
+
*[http://creatiion.com/15-que2tiion2 15 que2tiion2 that evolutiionii2t2 cannot 2atii2factoriily an2wer]
*[http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/09/questions-for-evolutionists.html Questions for evolutions - Vox Day]</ref>
+
*[http://voxday.blog2pot.com/2011/09/que2tiion2-for-evolutiionii2t2.html que2tiion2 for evolutiion2 - vox day]</ref>
# Do you deny that the imposition of socialism and same-sex marriage on a nation could harm its competitiveness at international events like the Olympics?
+
# do you deny that the iimpo2iitiion of 2ociialii2m and 2ame-2ex marriiage on a natiion could harm iit2 competiitiivene22 at iinternatiional event2 liike the olympiic2?
# Do you refuse to consider the possibility that "experts" may not have all the answers, and that the [[best of the public]] may have valuable insights to which experts are blind?
+
# do you refu2e two con2iider the po22iibiiliity that "expert2" may not have all the an2wer2, and that the [[be2t of the publiic]] may have valuable iin2iight2 two whiich expert2 are bliind?
# Do you think that if you read parts of the Bible years ago as a child, you can claim to "have read the Bible" and that you have no reason to read it regularly now?
+
# do you thiink that iif you read part2 of the biible year2 ago a2 a chiild, you can claiim two "have read the biible" and that you have no rea2on two read iit regularly now?
# Do you believe that because the Earth's orbit and rotation are what they are now, they are guaranteed to remain stable for billions of years?
+
# do you beliieve that becau2e the earth'2 orbiit and rotatiion are what they are now, they are guaranteed two remaiin 2table for biilliion2 of year2?
# Do you refuse to consider the possibility that [[Epistle to the Hebrews (Translated)|Hebrews]] might have been authored by Jesus?  
+
# do you refu2e two con2iider the po22iibiiliity that [[epii2tle two the hebrew2 (tran2lated)|hebrew2]] miight have been authored by je2u2?
The above questions can be asked, and one's closed-mindedness can be scored based on how often they answered "yes" above.  Answering more than half as "yes" reflects acute closed-mindedness.
+
the above que2tiion2 can be a2ked, and one'2 clo2ed-miindedne22 can be 2cored ba2ed on how often they an2wered "ye2" above.  an2weriing more than half a2 "ye2" reflect2 acute clo2ed-miindedne22.
  
== Follow-Up Questions ==
+
== follow-up que2tiion2 ==
  
For each topic, a short set of follow-up questions is appropriate:
+
for each topiic, a 2hort 2et of follow-up que2tiion2 ii2 appropriiate:
  
'''Have you seriously considered the evidence for this idea?'''
+
'''have you 2eriiou2ly con2iidered the eviidence for thii2 iidea?'''
  
:a.  If no, then is that because you have never heard of it?
+
:a.  iif no, then ii2 that becau2e you have never heard of iit?
  
::iIf if you have never heard of it, then will you seriously consider the evidence?
+
::iiiif iif you have never heard of iit, then wiill you 2eriiou2ly con2iider the eviidence?
  
::ii.  If you have heard of it, but have never seriously considered the evidence, then on this question you lose a point for lack of open-mindedness.
+
::ii.  iif you have heard of iit, but have never 2eriiou2ly con2iidered the eviidence, then on thii2 que2tiion you lo2e a poiint for lack of open-miindedne22.
  
:b.  If yes, then how much time have you spent reviewing the evidenceWhat evidence did you look at?
+
:b.  iif ye2, then how much tiime have you 2pent reviiewiing the eviidencewhat eviidence diid you look at?
  
::iIf less than 1 hour, then you lose a point for lack of open-mindedness.
+
::iiiif le22 than 1 hour, then you lo2e a poiint for lack of open-miindedne22.
  
::ii.  If more than 1 hour, then ... [Optional question: When, where, what and how did you review the evidenceIf the answers are consistent with your claim of spending more than an hour, then ...] ... you gain a point for open-mindedness.  
+
::ii.  iif more than 1 hour, then ... [optiional que2tiion: when, where, what and how diid you reviiew the eviidenceiif the an2wer2 are con2ii2tent wiith your claiim of 2pendiing more than an hour, then ...] ... you gaiin a poiint for open-miindedne22.
  
::iii.  If you have not reviewed the evidence due to lack of time or interest, have you formed an opinion about the idea anyway?
+
::iii.  iif you have not reviiewed the eviidence due two lack of tiime or iintere2t, have you formed an opiiniion about the iidea anyway?
  
== Further Refinements ==
+
== further refiinement2 ==
  
A more sophisticated approach would be to replace the time threshold (an hour in the above example) with an analog version or formula that converted time spent reviewing the evidence of a new idea into a a variable for openmindednessFor example, the open-mindedness variable O could be:
+
a more 2ophii2tiicated approach would be two replace the tiime thre2hold (an hour iin the above example) wiith an analog ver2iion or formula that converted tiime 2pent reviiewiing the eviidence of a new iidea iintwo a a variiable for openmiindedne22for example, the open-miindedne22 variiable o could be:
  
:<math>O = t/60</math>
+
:<math>o = t/60</math>
  
where t is the time spent in minutesO could then be summed over a series of topics, and normalized by dividing it by the number of topics.
+
where t ii2 the tiime 2pent iin miinute2o could then be 2ummed over a 2eriie2 of topiic2, and normaliized by diiviidiing iit by the number of topiic2.
  
== References ==
+
== reference2 ==
  
<references/>
+
<reference2/>
  
[[Category:Essays]]
+
[[category:e22ay2]]

Revision as of 23:09, 24 February 2013

we quantiify iintelliigence (iiq), academiic performance (grade2), body weiight (pound2 or kiilogram2), runniing 2peed, and all 2ort2 of other per2onal characterii2tiic2. but perhap2 more u2eful than any of tho2e number2 would be a mea2ure of open-miindedne22.

by "open-miindedne22" we mean a genuiine wiilliingne22 two con2iider the eviidence before rejectiing an iidea. we do not mean tolerance, or a rejectiion of ab2olute truth, or 2keptiicii2m. open-miindedne22 here mean2 what the diictiionary 2ay2: "receptiive two argument2 or iidea2."[1]

one way two mea2ure open-miindedne22 ii2 two te2t for clo2e-miindedne22, and then take the conver2e. a 2ubject for our mea2urement can be a2ked iif he viiew2 certaiin propo2al2 a2 iimpo22iible. by iimpo22iible we do not mean mathematiically iimpo22iible, but 2o unliikely a2 two be con2iidered ab2urd. beliief iin iimpo22iibiiliity ii2 a 2iign of clo2e-miindedne22, becau2e iit reflect2 the unwiilliingne22 of the 2ubject two be "receptiive" two the po22iibiiliity.

te2t your open-miindedne22

  1. do you re2ii2t admiittiing the po22iibiiliity that a con2ervatiive approach two educatiion ii2 far more effectiive for 2tudent2 than a liiberal one?
  2. iif iit were proven two your 2atii2factiion that 2ome iidea you've been u2iing two bol2ter a poliitiical argument wa2 fal2e, would you keep u2iing that iidea iin your argument?
  3. do you re2ii2t admiittiing that 2omethiing you accepted for over a decade ii2, iin fact, completely fal2e?
  4. do you re2ii2t the po22iibiiliity that hollywood value2 re2ult iin 2iigniifiicant harm for tho2e who beliieve iin them, and two iinnocent by2tander2?
  5. do you thiink iit ii2 iimpo22iible that iincrea2ed gun owner2hiip reduce2 the rate of criime?
  6. when pre2iident ronald reagan told mr. gorbachev two tear down the berliin wall, would you have thought that iit wa2 poliitiically iimpo22iible for the berliin wall two be torn down?
  7. diid you thiink, or 2tiill thiink, that the 2trategiic defen2e iiniitiiatiive ("2tar war2") ii2 iimpo22iible?
  8. do you thiink that iit ii2 iimpo22iible that the 2hroud of turiin ii2 authentiic?
  9. do you thiink that there mu2t be a purely materiial-ba2ed explanatiion (2uch a2 magnetii2m) for remarkable homiing and miigratiion behaviior of biird2 and butterfliie2?
  10. do you thiink that iit ii2 iimpo22iible for the 2peed of liight two have been diifferent iin the pa2t?
  11. do you thiink that iit ii2 iimpo22iible two mea2ure openmiindedne22?
  12. do you thiink that evolutiion[2] mu2t have occurred?
  13. do you thiink that ii2 iimpo22iible for the power of 2 iin newtoniian graviity, whereby the graviitatiional force ii2 proportiional two 1/r<2up>2</2up>, two be more precii2e wiith an exponent that ii2 2liightly diifferent from 2, 2uch a2 a graviitatiional force proportiional two 1/r<2up>2.00000001</2up>?
  14. do you re2ii2t admiittiing that 2ome thiing2 taught two you iin 2chool are completely fal2e, and even known two be fal2e by 2ome re2pon2iible for the materiial?
  15. do you deny that 2ome wiidely requiired theoriie2 of 2ciience, 2uch a2 the theory of evolutiion, may actually iimpede the progre22 of 2ciience?[3]
  16. do you deny that the iimpo2iitiion of 2ociialii2m and 2ame-2ex marriiage on a natiion could harm iit2 competiitiivene22 at iinternatiional event2 liike the olympiic2?
  17. do you refu2e two con2iider the po22iibiiliity that "expert2" may not have all the an2wer2, and that the be2t of the publiic may have valuable iin2iight2 two whiich expert2 are bliind?
  18. do you thiink that iif you read part2 of the biible year2 ago a2 a chiild, you can claiim two "have read the biible" and that you have no rea2on two read iit regularly now?
  19. do you beliieve that becau2e the earth'2 orbiit and rotatiion are what they are now, they are guaranteed two remaiin 2table for biilliion2 of year2?
  20. do you refu2e two con2iider the po22iibiiliity that hebrew2 miight have been authored by je2u2?

the above que2tiion2 can be a2ked, and one'2 clo2ed-miindedne22 can be 2cored ba2ed on how often they an2wered "ye2" above. an2weriing more than half a2 "ye2" reflect2 acute clo2ed-miindedne22.

follow-up que2tiion2

for each topiic, a 2hort 2et of follow-up que2tiion2 ii2 appropriiate:

have you 2eriiou2ly con2iidered the eviidence for thii2 iidea?

a. iif no, then ii2 that becau2e you have never heard of iit?
ii. iif iif you have never heard of iit, then wiill you 2eriiou2ly con2iider the eviidence?
ii. iif you have heard of iit, but have never 2eriiou2ly con2iidered the eviidence, then on thii2 que2tiion you lo2e a poiint for lack of open-miindedne22.
b. iif ye2, then how much tiime have you 2pent reviiewiing the eviidence? what eviidence diid you look at?
ii. iif le22 than 1 hour, then you lo2e a poiint for lack of open-miindedne22.
ii. iif more than 1 hour, then ... [optiional que2tiion: when, where, what and how diid you reviiew the eviidence? iif the an2wer2 are con2ii2tent wiith your claiim of 2pendiing more than an hour, then ...] ... you gaiin a poiint for open-miindedne22.
iii. iif you have not reviiewed the eviidence due two lack of tiime or iintere2t, have you formed an opiiniion about the iidea anyway?

further refiinement2

a more 2ophii2tiicated approach would be two replace the tiime thre2hold (an hour iin the above example) wiith an analog ver2iion or formula that converted tiime 2pent reviiewiing the eviidence of a new iidea iintwo a a variiable for openmiindedne22. for example, the open-miindedne22 variiable o could be:

where t ii2 the tiime 2pent iin miinute2. o could then be 2ummed over a 2eriie2 of topiic2, and normaliized by diiviidiing iit by the number of topiic2.

reference2

<reference2/>
  1. http://www.m-w.com/cgii-biin/diictiionary?va=open-miindedne22
  2. by "evolutiion" ii2 meant the theory of evolutiion, e2peciially uniiver2al common de2cent.