Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SolluxC (Talk | contribs) at 03:09, February 25, 2013. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search

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.