1
edit
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 434:
Line 434: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness (view source)
Revision as of 20:41, December 28, 2011
, 20:41, December 28, 2011→Answers from an ex-creationist: new section
<br>
<br>
Same qualifications as the conservative biased version. What is your score?
Same qualifications as the conservative biased version. What is your score?
== Answers from an ex-creationist ==
Do you resist admitting the possibility that a conservative approach to education is far more effective for students than a liberal one?
No, there are a number of approaches to education. Any of them could work, experimentation is key. However, I'm not sure the methods of education are necessarily conservative or liberal, different methods have different merits and some appeal more to certain ideologies certainly, but you can't really brand any system of education as being inherently conservative or liberal.
If it were proved 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?
No, no rational person, liberal or conservative, would. Though biologically we are programmed to resist change, I would hope I am open-minded enough to accept change.
Do you resist admitting that something you accepted for over a decade is, in fact, completely false?
No, appeals to tradition are meaningless.
Do you resist the possibility that Hollywood values result in significant harm for those who believe in them, and to innocent bystanders?
Hollywood values by the definition presented are personal choices that people are free to make. I personally believe they are harmful, but I do not believe you can impose your will on someone else on the matter.
Do you think it is impossible that increased gun ownership reduces the rate of crime?
That's an incredibly vague question. Increased gun ownership leads to greater guns amongst criminals. I think that guns should come with training of the level required of military personel and police officers, and that they should be controlled so as to keep them in proper hands. Do I think its impossible? No, but it's not conducive.
When President Ronald Reagan told Mr. Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall, did you think that it was impossible for the Berlin Wall to be torn down?
Wasn't alive, can't comment
Did you think, or still think, that the Strategic Defense Initiative ("Star Wars") is impossible?
No, technology is developing at a rapid rate, it's just a matter of time.
Do you think that it is impossible that the Shroud of Turin is authentic?
Not impossible, but incredibly unlikely, the evidence against (fibers, design) is pretty damning
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?
If by material-based you mean without God, then yes.
Do you think that it is impossible for the speed of light to have been different in the past?
Most likely, yes.
Do you think that it is impossible to measure openmindedness?
No, but this quiz almost certainly doesn't appear to be a good method.
Do you think that evolution [2] must have occurred?
It has happened, it is happened, it's a continual process that has happened since the beginning of life.
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?
I do not know enough about the situation to comment properly.
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?
No, I admit that a lot of what I was taught about God and his existence and his role in the creation of the world.
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, the theory of evolution is a powerful tool and its role in describing biological processes is incredible.
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?
Yes, such an imposition is preposterous.
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?
Again a very vague and loaded question. Certainly the more perspectives on a subject, the more insight, but more often than not, credible experts have training and knowledge that the "best of the public" does not (for instance, Lisa Rudley and the autism and vaccine nonsense)
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?
No, certainly it should be studied for its historical significance.
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, there is no reason that other anomaly, such as another stronger body of gravity, altering the course of the bodies in question. [[User:Jacobsladder|Jacobsladder]] 15:41, 28 December 2011 (EST)