Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, delete, edit, Moderators, move, protect, rollback, Administrators
27,336
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 789:
Line 789: − − My Answers − − Do you resist admitting the possibility that a conservative approach to education is far more effective for students than a liberal one? − − Neither term has been adequately defined, within the scope of this questionnaire, such that I can answer it in good conscience. It would entirely depend on the definition of each word. If by "conservative" you meant a teacher discussing material with students and by "liberal" you meant physically hitting a student in the head with a text book on the material to be learned in an effort to transfer the knowledge by physical force, of course I'd say "conservative". If you swapped the terms, I'd say "liberal". You simply must define what you mean if you are expecting to objectively judge open-mindedness. − − 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? − − First, "to my satisfaction" means nothing, especially in this context (people will often defend political ideas BEYOND the point that they should no longer accept them). If I was severely mentally ill, it could probably be proven to my satisfaction that the sky is red and that my dog talks to me in fluent Italian, despite neither being objectively true. Defining reality such that things only need proven to the individuals satisfaction is silly. If an idea I was using to bolster a political argument was proven to be objectively wrong, I would no longer use that idea in my argument. "To my satisfaction" is pointless fluff that, I presume, was included to give the author some wiggle room. − − Do you resist admitting that something you accepted for over a decade is, in fact, completely false? − − No, though again, why the qualifier? Why "over a decade"? I don't care if it's something I've believed all my life or for less than a day. If it is false, I would no longer accept it. − − Do you resist the possibility that Hollywood values result in significant harm for those who believe in them, and to innocent bystanders? − − "Hollywood values" isn't sufficiently defined. Are you referring to the "Hollywood values" of Stephen Baldwin, or Matt Damon? Chuck Norris, or Seth MacFarlane? Both sets of people are famous, rich actors, yet have opposing values. Just say what you mean, without all the coded talking points. − − Do you think it is impossible that increased gun ownership reduces the rate of crime? − − It's not impossible, but this question is hopelessly naive in that it implies that gun ownership is the only factor in crime rate in that more guns = less crime and less guns = more crime. There are more factors. − − 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? − − This is an event that has already happened. As such, the probability of it happening is 100%. − − Did you think, or still think, that the Strategic Defense Initiative ("Star Wars") is impossible? − − You defined the term "impossible" in the previous question, yet demurred here. Why? And did you mean politically impossible, financially impossible, logistically impossible? In order to be answered in good conscience, this question needs to be defined properly. Something might be, for example, financially possible but logistically impossible. If, then, the question was worded "was *thing* financially possible?", the answer might be yes, whereas if the question was "was *thing* logistically possible*, the answer might be no. To put this in context, there exists enough money to theoretically build a space elevator. However, we do not have materials strong enough to work. Such a project would be financially possible, but logistically impossible. − − Do you think that it is impossible that the Shroud of Turin is authentic? − − I think it's impossible to determine either way, since those in possession of the shroud won't let it be tested. For that matter, I think this lack of willingness to let the shroud be tested makes it LESS likely that it's real. If you're telling the truth, you would have nothing to hide. − − 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? − − You have failed to define what the alternative would be; as such, you could be implying that birds and butterflies migrate because of magic. An informed answer is impossible until you define an alternative. − − Do you think that it is impossible for the speed of light to have been different in the past? − − You didn't define "the past", nor did you define "different". Do you mean 6000 years ago, or 13+ billion years ago? Do you mean faster, or slower? And by how much? I'm sorry to quibble over words and stuff, but you're asking rather in depth questions and then being extremely vague. − − Do you think that it is impossible to measure openmindedness? − − In the context of this questionnaire, yes, because you've done a poor job of formulating questions. Also, it's worth asking, are the "good Conservapedians" who answered this questionnaire "correctly" willing to be open-minded enough to admit that liberal education might be superior to conservative education? And that the speed of light might have been constant? Open-mindedness swings both ways. I think we all know the agenda here, though. You could have replaced the entire list of questions with one that read "Are you open-minded enough to accept everything ASchlafly says as gospel?" − − Do you think that evolution[2] must have occurred? − − Yes. This has been proven both "to my satisfaction", which I've stated is meaningless, but also objectively. You guys can argue about micro- and macro- until you're blue in the face, but there are absolutely changes in gene frequency over time. That is evolution. I suspect that you make the common mistake of wrapping biological evolution up with abiogenesis, big bang cosmology, an old universe, etc. Evolution is evolution. Those other things are other fields of study which, disagree with them as strongly as you like, are simply not evolution. − − Do you think that is impossible for the power of 2 in Newtonian gravity, whereby the gravitational force is proportional to 1/r2, to be more precise with an exponent that is slightly different from 2, such as a gravitational force proportional to 1/r2.00000001? − − This has it's own page now, so I'll defer to that debate. − − 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? − − Again, you haven't defined what you mean. These big, huge, sweeping, open-ended statements make it meaningless to try and judge open-mindedness. Fine, y'know what? No, I don't resit admitting it, because I had one English teacher say that Oxford commas are acceptable and another that said they're never acceptable. They couldn't both be right, right? See? You try to score anti-evolution, or pro-teacher-lead-prayer points and yet people can agree with your premise without supporting your agenda because you cast your net way, way, way too wide. − − Do you deny that some widely required theories of science, such as the theory of evolution, may actually impede the progress of science?[3] − − Yes. In fact, among other reasons, there is a free market incentive for why these things help science: if the theory of evolution is held in such high regard, this creates an incentive to try to topple it, because anyone who COULD successfully show that evolution is scientifically flawed would become massively rich and famous; much more so than they'd be if they blindly accepted it out of some kind of scientific orthodoxy. If science were viewed as "any hypothesis is as good as any other hypothesis", no one would bother doing any research because the reward-to-effort would be skewed such that it wouldn't be worth the time and effort. − − 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 imposition of socialism and same-sex marriage on a nation could be utterly irrelevant to its competitiveness at international events like the Olympics? Besides, doesn't this site make a huge deal about not caring what other nations think of us? − − 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? − − No, I don't refuse to consider that. I also don't refuse to consider that the best of the public might be wrong. Or that both might be wrong. Or that both might reach a consensus. Experts agree that touching fire is generally painful and should be avoided. Should I go and stick my hand into fire just to stick it to those snooty, ivory tower elites? − − 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? − − This is worded very dishonestly. Technically speaking, anyone who has read the Bible has read the Bible. I take it to mean that by "read", you meant "taken the same message from the Bible as most members of this site do"? − − 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? − − No. Why? Because "billions of years" is entirely too open-ended. Eventually, the sun will engulf the earth at which point there won't be an earth to have an orbit and rotation. For that matter, between now and the earth getting engulfed, it's possible a comet might hit the earth and have some effect on either of those variables. − − Do you refuse to consider the possibility that Hebrews might have been authored by Jesus? − − Do you refuse to consider the possibility that Hebrews might NOT have been authored by Jesus? Honestly, I could have answered every question this way. If you take nothing else away from this response, let it be "open-mindedness" goes both ways. You don't get to define "open-minded" as "open-minded enough to accept that everything ASchlafly or User:Conservative says is right".
Talk:Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness (view source)
Revision as of 08:16, January 3, 2013
, 08:16, January 3, 2013Reverted edits by RichardAllen (talk) to last revision by JudyJ
*22b. Do you deny the possibility that relativity is ''not'' a correct explanation?
*22b. Do you deny the possibility that relativity is ''not'' a correct explanation?
::I believe that future developments will eventually supplant the 20<sup>th</sup> century notion of special and general relativity. But I totally accept it as the correct scientific paradigm for its time, just as Newtonian mechanics was the correct scientific paradigm for its time.
::I believe that future developments will eventually supplant the 20<sup>th</sup> century notion of special and general relativity. But I totally accept it as the correct scientific paradigm for its time, just as Newtonian mechanics was the correct scientific paradigm for its time.