Changes

:Your conclusion about Conservapedia does not follow.  Some of your answers, even when they are a correct "no", are diluted by qualifications to such an extent that they would not receive full credit.  Moreover, there is nothing defective about wording like "Do you resist admitting the possibility that ..." (question 1).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:27, 25 November 2011 (EST)

:Your conclusion about Conservapedia does not follow.  Some of your answers, even when they are a correct "no", are diluted by qualifications to such an extent that they would not receive full credit.  Moreover, there is nothing defective about wording like "Do you resist admitting the possibility that ..." (question 1).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:27, 25 November 2011 (EST)

::What do you mean by qualifications? Can you give me an example? My answers are quite simply skeptical. I answer with a skeptical and logical mindset. The words "Do you resist admitting" imply that the following statement is absolutely true. Infact, you admitted as much further up. By saying that a proposition is absolutely true, you are not being open-minded. Open-mindedness requires that you might possibly be wrong. That is even a large part of this questionnaire. By having questions that are not open-minded, the open-mindedness test becomes invalid.

::The qualifications are needed because many of these questions are to vague for a yes or no answer. My answers are quite simply skeptical. I answer with a skeptical and logical mindset. The words "Do you resist admitting" imply that the following statement is absolutely true. Infact, you admitted as much further up. By saying that a proposition is absolutely true, you are not being open-minded. Open-mindedness requires that you might possibly be wrong. That is even a large part of this questionnaire. By having questions that are not open-minded, the open-mindedness test becomes invalid.

== The Questions Slanted Liberally ==

== The Questions Slanted Liberally ==