SkipCaptcha
175
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 577:
Line 577: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness (view source)
Revision as of 14:39, June 19, 2012
, 14:39, June 19, 2012→A response to the recent main page answers: new section
[[User:Willingham|Willingham]] 10:33, 18 June 2012 (EDT)
[[User:Willingham|Willingham]] 10:33, 18 June 2012 (EDT)
== A response to the recent main page answers ==
This is in response to the answers posted by JerryD on the main page, and Andy's scoring of them.
1. Do you resist admitting the possibility that a conservative approach to education is far more effective for students than a liberal one?
:J - I’m not exactly sure what conservative and liberal approaches to education are, and if the rest of this site is any indication I’d suspect your definition of “liberal education” will be a combination of rather cherry-picked examples of the worst elements along with some strawmen. Besides that, I don’t know how I can resist admitting some ill-defined terms, but if the overall question is “is it possible that a conservative approach to education is better than a liberal one” I’d answer, possibly, sure, depending on the definitions.
:A - OK, one point of credit given.
:Me - Due to the uncertainty of what is meant by a liberal or conservative education, a score of 0/0.
2. 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?
:J - No.
:A - Good. One more point.
:Me - One point.
3. Do you resist admitting that something you accepted for over a decade is, in fact, completely false?
:J - I think everyone ‘’resists’’ changing their long held views. We wouldn’t hold them very strongly if we didn’t. Few people turn on a dime on things they’ve thought for years. If I were convinced about it, after studying the evidence, I would accept that the belief in question is false.
:A - Half-point credit, in light of the equivocation.
:Me - Full point. Resisting changing one's opinion is necessary to have opinions which last for more than 10 seconds. He does suggest that having held the opinion for 10 years wouldn't affect whether he changes his mind or not, the evidence would change his mind.
4. Do you resist the possibility that Hollywood values result in significant harm for those who believe in them, and to innocent bystanders?
:J - “Hollywood values” isn’t exactly well-defined either. If you’re going to define Hollywood by its worst aspects, such as drug use (which exists in every city in the country), then sure. We all know drugs can be quite harmful. Does that make watching a typical Hollywood blockbuster harmful? No. Although most are basically crummy movies these days, but that’s subjective and irrelevant.
:A - No credit here. Hollywood values is worse in many ways than what is typical in many cities.
:Me - Without Hollywood values defined, 0/0
5. Do you think it is impossible that increased gun ownership reduces the rate of crime?
:J - It’s possible, and I believe there have been studies that have shown some evidence for this. There’s also evidence against it, if you look at foreign countries with less gun ownership and less crime. If I had to guess I’d say widespread gun ownership might lead to a modest decrease in things like muggings and robberies, but a modest increase in murder and accidental firearm deaths.
:A - Credit is given because you say it is possible. Note that the rate of accidential firearm deaths is very small.
:Me - Full point.
6. 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? (Or for those who were not born/not old enough to have an opinion - Do you think it is impossible that North Korea and South Korea will reunite into a single country, without being the result of one invading the other?)
:J - The wall was made of steel and cement, of course it could be torn down. No sane person could think otherwise. At some point in the future its demise was inevitable. Did Reagan cause the wall to be torn down? I’ve seen no evidence for it. Certainly not directly, anyway.
:A - Zero credit because the point of the question is whether it would be politically possible, not physically possible.
:Me - He seems to have missed the point of the question. No reason to penalise that. 0/0
7. Did you think, or still think, that the Strategic Defense Initiative ("Star Wars") is impossible?
:J - Again, there’s very little that is impossible. SDI was theoretically possible. Was it practical though? From what I know of it, probably not. It was never implemented for a reason.
:A - Zero credit. Lots of things are impossible. The question is not limited to what is "theoretically possible."
:Me - I see nothing wrong with his answer, however because I don't understand Andy's objection, will give 0/0 instead of 1/1.
8. Do you think that it is impossible that the Shroud of Turin is authentic?
:J - Possible, but very unlikely.
:A - Half credit due to the "very unlikely" statement.
:Me - Full point. Nothing wrong with thinking something is possible but unlikely. Really, if he was asked to give a percentage of how likely it is to be authentic, any answer except 0% and 100% should be enough to grant a point.
9. 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?
:J - I think it is by far the most likely scenario.
:A - Half credit.
:Me - Full point. Same reason as above.
10. Do you think that it is impossible for the speed of light to have been different in the past?
:J - My understanding of the laws of physics seems to indicate this is more or less impossible. It’s possible the laws are wrong, I suppose, and there seems to be zero evidence that this is the case. But, no, I guess it falls a bit short of impossible.
:A - Full credit.
:Me - Full point.
11. Do you think that it is impossible to measure openmindedness?
:J - It would be very difficult to in any real accurate and specific way. This test is quite biased. I think it can measured in a vague way.
:A - Half credit - "measured in a vague way"?? Either it can be measured, or it can't.
:Me - Half point. Stating that it would be very difficult to measure in any real accurate or specific way, and then saying that it can be measured in a vague way is enough for me to interpret it as saying it's impossible to measure in a quantitative way.
12. Do you think that evolution must have occurred?
:J - All evidence points to it, so I’d say it has occurred, but it’s not impossible it didn’t.
:A - Full credit because you say it is "not impossible."
:Me - Full point.
13. 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?
:J - I have to admit I know nothing about this, and there is very little in the universe that is 100% impossible, so sure, it’s possible.
:A - Full credit.
:Me - Full point.
14. 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?
:J - No. I realize my teachers didn’t always get everything right. They’re human, like the rest of us.
:A - Zero credit. The question asks about teaching known falsehoods. That's not an issue of being "human, like the rest of us."
:Me - 0/0. Missed the point of the question
15. Do you deny that some widely required theories of science, such as the theory of evolution, may actually impede the progress of science?
:J - I’d like to see evidence that they do before condemning them. Overall I’d say they do more good than harm, if that’s the question.
:A - Zero credit.
:Me - No point. Although I'm not confident in my interpretation of his answer. Nothing wrong in wanting to see evidence before condemning a specific theory. I think he means that all theories do more good in progressing science than harm in progressing science.
16. 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?
:J - I fail to see how they could. Given some evidence for this hypothesis I could conceivably change my mind, but there seems very little relation between the two subjects, so I can’t envision how one would measurably affect the other.
:A - Zero credit.
:Me - Full point. Says he could change his mind if presented with evidence. Nothing wrong with not seeing how one would affect the other. He doesn't say it is impossible, just that he doesn't personally see how it is possible.
17. 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?
:J - Oh not at all. Experts don’t always get everything right. They can’t, as different experts often have different views on the same subject, and they can’t both be right. A legitimate expert, however, will be in a better position to have the answer on a relevant subject than a non-expert. The best of the public is an intriguing idea that has merit, but deciding who “the best” of the public is is no easy task. I haven’t yet observed them on this site.
:A - Full credit.
:Me - Full point. But with hesitation. He focuses on who is more likely to be right, rather than whether the best of the public can offer ideas or insights which are useful.
18. 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?
:J - This seems more of a semantic argument than anything else. Are only people who’ve read the Bible cover to cover (including all the boring lists of laws and who begat whoms) able to really say they’ve read the Bible? The reason to read it regularly is if you want to, or you want a better knowledge of what it says. Those who want to have a reason to read it, those who don’t, don’t.
:A - Zero credit.
:Me - No point. Suggests that wanting a better knowledge of what the Bible says is the only reason non-Christians read the Bible. The Bible can offer interesting and useful ideas or thoughts to non-Christians, which he seems to suggest is impossible. I may be reading more into his response than is reasonable though.
19. 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?
:J - I don’t think the universe issues guarantees. I believe the laws of physics do indicate the relatively stable orbit, though not necessarily unchanging.
:A - Zero credit. Earth's orbit is unstable.
:Me - Full point. By using the word "relatively", he basically says that over extreme lengths of time, it may not be stable, but for time-scales of interest to us, it is stable. The question doesn't make the distinction between long-term, and short-term, stability.
Andy gave a score of 9.
I give a score of 11.5/13, which is 88%.
- [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 10:39, 19 June 2012 (EDT)