@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-::''If you wish to discuss whether Newtonian gravity could have a different exponent than 2, see [[Debate:What is the exponent of r in Newtonian gravity?|the debate page]].''
-== Not a suitable criterion ==
-I don't think that "a genuine willingness to accept something as possibly being true" is a suitable criterion.  It doesn't take into account the difference between the following two scenarios:
-* A person who has never considered the evidence.  For example, I would be close-minded to say that [[Noah]] could not have fitted all the animals on the ark if I didn't know how big the ark was and how many animals would have qualified.
-* A person who has considered the available evidence and has formed a considered opinion.  For example, I would be not be close-minded to say that evolution is impossible if I had studied [[information]] theory and knew how it negated the possibility.
-A better definition might be "a genuine willingness to consider the evidence before rejecting an idea".
-[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:17, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
-Excellent!  I've made the change.  God bless you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:31, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
-:Thanks!  I'm glad you appreciated it.
-:However, I believe that it now renders your examples tests invalid.  You can't test for a willingness to consider the evidence by asking someone if they accept the possibility of something.  If they've already considered the possibility and have concluded that it is impossible, they have been open minded on it, but would still "fail" the test.
-:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:45, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
-:: We can ask subjects a mixture of new ideas and ones they've already heard.  It can be two questions:
-.  Have you seriously considered the evidence for this idea?
-.  If no, then would you?
-.  If yes, then describe what evidence you looked at.
---[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:02, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
-::: Would saying that something is absolutely the case be just as bad as impossible that something is the case?  Are people who believe without equivocation that (say...) trickle down economics works just as close minded those who believe that without equivocation that it does not?  I would assert that there are people who are just as close minded about the possibility the examples that you gave as there are people who are close minded about the impossibility of the examples.  --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 23:08, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
-: But look at the definition of openmindedness, "a genuine willingness to consider the evidence before rejecting an idea."  That's the difference.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:47, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
-:: You've got the Shroud of Turin as an example. What is your stance on that? What evidence have you considered? If presented with evidence to the contrary, are you willing to change your mind?  The last two questions are potentially critical ones. This is not something that someone can eaisly say "your OMQ is such and such based on this test." What about situations where there is not 'evidence' to be considered?  There are a multitude of social issues out there that people feel quite strongly upon with very little open mindedness on either side.  One extreme difficulty with this test is that the questions can very easily be weighted to one political view or another to make it look like the other side are a bunch of close minded fools. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 23:59, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
-::: No, I think the three questions are simple and straightforward.  We can elaborate a bit as follows:
-'''Have you seriously considered the evidence for this idea?'''
-:1a.  If no, then is that because you have never heard of it?
-::1aa.  If if you have never heard of it, then will you seriously consider the evidence?
-::1ab.  If you have heard of it, but have never seriously considered the evidence, then on this question you lose a point for lack of openmindedness.
-:2b.  If yes, then how much time have you spent reviewing the evidence?  What evidence did you look at?
-::2ba.  If less than 1 hour, then you lose a point for lack of openmindedness.
-::2bb.  If more than 1 hour, then you gain a point for openmindedness.
-(the time period may vary depending on the complexity of the topic).--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:15, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
-:Now that's getting much closer to a suitable test.  I'm glad you put that last point in; before I read it, my reaction was, "but one hour may not always be appropriate".
-:Another thought that needs developing:  There are lots of things that I won't spend the time considering, simply because I don't have the time.  But in those cases, I try not to criticise the idea because I haven't properly considered it.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:52, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
-: Good point.  I'll incorporate all these concepts now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:12, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
-: I have a question about your 1ab point.  If for example, someone says no, they haven't seriously considered the evidence for the Shroud of Turin, but have heard of it, how does that make them less open minded?  What if to that person the topic is just not found to be very interesting, and they prefer to spend time researching topics that are more interesting to them? --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 10:23, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
-:: OK, in that case the follow-up question should be whether the person forms an opinion for himself about this topic without looking at the evidence.  If the answer is yes, then that is quintessential closemindedness.  I'll update the content page based on your excellent point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:26, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
-Something else I think you have to consider with this kind of test is that it is easy to misrepresent yourself on it.  I believe "openmindedness" to be a trait which most people would deem to be a good trait.  Therefore going into this exam, people will want the outcome to give them a more favorable score so it is heavily reliant on the test takers being 100% accurate in their responses.  Whereas with an IQ test, you are asked questions with definitive answers where you either know the answer, or you don't. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 10:33, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
-: Good point, but asking about specific amounts of time spent considering the evidence would seem to minimize the problem you describe.  If further precautions are warranted, then follow-up questions about when, where, what, how could be asked concerning reviewing evidence.  In fact, I'll add that now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:52, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
-:: Colest, you've done a better job then I could've explaining why I'm dubious (but not shut-off to the idea) about this test. If it is subjective enough that a person can misrepresent himself, are we really quantifying anything with this score? That political compass thing that some CPers advertise their scores from is neat and all, but I'd never try to use the number in any meaningful way.
-::If this is just a conversation starter then cool, but from the other endeavors Andy is involved in that sounds a little trivial to me. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 20:32, 2 July 2007 (EDT) ''<- pursuing the trivial...''
-==  Example Questions and Topics ==
-I see a couple of problems with the topics section of this essay.  The first concern is a minor one.  You have, as an example, “For example, did our subject think that President Ronald Reagan's exhortation, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this [Berlin] wall!" was an impossibility?” But, properly, speaking, it is not a statement that can be examined as a possibility (or impossibility) , since imperatives are neither true nor false.  A better way to word this question would be, “When President Regan told Mr. Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall, did you think that it was impossible for the Berlin Wall to be torn down?”  Of course, this is not an especially good measure in the present, since, most people will report that  they thought it was possible (even if they did not at the time, as people tend to misremember their past, to bring their past in line with there present reality).
-The second problem I see is that the questions, as they now stand will clearly skew the results toward Conservatives being more open-minded—questions asking whether conservatives are open to liberal ideas should be included to make sure that the data is not inadvertently slanted.  For example, “Did our subject think, or still think, that his/her understanding of the Bible may be wrong?” “Did our subject think, or still think, that evolution is possible?” “Did our subject think, or still think, that human behavior could warm the global climate?” and “Did our subject think, or still think, that homosexuality could be a natural behavior?”--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 11:26, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
-: You rewording of the Reagan is longer, but fine.  I'll change it per your comment.
-: I think we should add liberal-oriented questions.  But your examples do not focus on a belief in impossibility, which is the essential element here.  Perhaps you'd like to refine some liberal questions that ask about impossibility, for me to add?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
-::I’ll take a second stab at it:
-::“Does our subject think that it is impossible that evolution could have occurred?”
-::“Does our subject think that it is impossible that he/she could be mistaken about the truth of the Bible?” (I rather like this one as it cuts both ways, a believer is (implicitly) being asked if he/she thinks that atheism or some other religion could possibly be true, while a non-believer is asked if he/she thinks Christianity could be true.)
-::“Does our subject think that it is impossible that homosexuality is a natural behavior?”
-::“Does our subject think that it is impossible that the global climate is currently warming as a result of human behavior?”
-::How do those look to you? --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 23:04, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
-::: Those questions look fine to me.  Some further refinements to limit them to facts might be helpful.  But basically they look OK, and I'll add them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:09, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
-:::: Couldn't this method of quantifying openmindedness be manipulated to receive any set of desired results? For example, if I was to ask "does our subject think that it is impossible for God to exist", then I could automatically chalk up one closed-mindedness point from anybody who is a Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, etc. There are bound to be many questions like this, no? --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 17:43, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
-:For all queries for 'do you believe it is imposssible that x' there should be a matching 'do you believe that it is possible that not x'.  X then merely has to cover all ideological issue.  You could even have some a priori ones as control questions.  {{unsigned|Lookamoose}}
-== Curious About... ==
-So, there's a conversation on the Main Page that directs to this essay; it's an interesting read. However, the poster is asked "By the way, what's your score on Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness?" I thought I'd be better able to follow the conversation if I found out my own score. Am I missing a link or something? I don't see any way that I can derive a score.
-I have to admit, at the risk of sounding close-minded, I'm dubious about coming up with a useful measurement. That said, here I am, checking out the source. I'll even give it more than an hour. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 10:41, 2 July 2007 (EDT) ''<-An open mind and a closed parentheses''
-: I suspect your real objection is to trying at all.  Six questions are posted.  What's your score on those six?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:49, 2 July 2007 (EDT)
-:: *blink* Andy, you and I have actually agreed on things on the front page. I know we're not of one mind on a lot of things (and I really do worry about isolating rather than engaging, but I know you'd disagree on that characterization), and I know you're too busy to remember who's who all the time (and I'm a pretty minor poster, I know), but an aggressive stance seems unwarranted.
-:: Anyway, here are my answers:
-:: 1) No, but to be fair I wasn't particularly engaged in national and world affairs back then so I shouldn't get too much credit for that.
-::: Evidence issue - maybe I'm favoring myself, but I choose not to deduct a point for failing to look at the evidence when it wasn't a conscious decision; I barely noticed the event taking place.
-:: 2) I never thought it was impossible. I have no advanced scientific knowledge so it would be ludicrous for me to assume that a technology is or is not possible. It actually sounds simple to me, but I've been told that it's harder than it looks.
-::: Evidence issue - if I'm reading the essay correctly, I lose a point for having heard of the issue but not investigating the evidence, even though I agree it's possible. Is that correct?
-:: 3) Sure it can be authentic. There's a lot stranger things in the world than that.
-::: Evidence issue - Same as #2. I accept the possibility but haven't looked into it. Do I lose a point?
-:: 4) I don't think the speed of light changing over time is impossible. I also don't know the arguments for or against it.
-::: Evidence issue - same as #3.
-:: 5) I don't think it's impossible, but of course as I mentioned before I'm dubious. If you're interested in the conversation I'll tell you why, but you haven't asked and I won't assume.
-::: Evidence issue - well, I'm working on it right now, so this would be incomplete.
-:: 6) Depends on how far you want to split hairs here. If you mean the evolution vs. creation debate, I absolutely accept the possibility that we were Created. If you mean ANY evolution whatsoever... well, I guess I live by "never say never" but we're talking about a very low level of accepting the possibility.
-::: Evidence issue - Not to split hairs again, but on the one hand I've clocked in many hours going to church, reading books, and browsing sites like this one. On the other hand, I'm not particularly interested in the evolution debate, so I haven't tried to digest all of the arguments. So... point? No point? Again, I accept the premise, so it seems kind of moot.
-:: So, my raw score for accepting the ideas presented is either 5 or 6, depending on how you score #6. Depending on how you adjust for the follow-up questions, my score ranges from 1 to 7 (and possibly 8 depending on how long this goes on).
-:: [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 11:36, 2 July 2007 (EDT) ''<- my mind is open, but there's a bouncer''
-== Definition ==
-I see Andy "removed claims that no scientists or significant groups support". Perhaps "openmindness" should be redefined as a genuine willingness to consider the evidence ''for an idea that scientists and significant groups support'' before rejecting the idea. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:12, 2 July 2007 (EDT)
-: Insert "some" before scientists and "or" rather than "and", which would be consistent with the quote above, and I wouldn't object to that modified definition:  a genuine willingness to consider the evidence ''for an idea that some scientists or significant groups support''--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:22, 2 July 2007 (EDT)
-:: Define it any way you want. But as it is, your questions don't really match your definition. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 03:01, 3 July 2007 (EDT)
-==new question==
-We need a question in this essay that asks the user if they believe it is possible that God doesn't exist.  This question drives to the heart of open-mindedness.  Please do not remove it without legitimate discussion.  --[[User:AntnyGonzo|AntnyGonzo]] 19:34, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
-:No, Gonzo...YOU will ask the author of the essay first if you can alter it.  As far as I'm concerned, you have no authorization to alter an essay of any kind.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:36, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
-:And why do we need such a question?
-:FYI, the question you pose runs entirely counter to the thrust of the essay. An essay is not an ordinary article. It is an original work. As such, it is for the author of that original work to decide whether to include anything or not.
-:Publish your question here, by all means--and be prepared to take criticism as to the appropriateness of the question.
-:But '''you''' do not unilaterally change the essayist's work. If you are serious about whether being open-minded means deciding that God need not exist, write your own essay. But don't go ruining someone else's.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 19:38, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
-::The user has been indef blocked, anyway. [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 19:39, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
-:::So he has. But I'll let my comment stand anyway, as a warning to anyone who might feel the slightest temptation to repeat his bad example.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 19:41, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
-:::Gonzo's demand was we talk about his "alteration" on the talk page only, rather than him bring it up on the talk page, ar ask the author if he could change it first.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:43, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
-::The essay started with the request ''comments or improvements welcome'' [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Quantifying_Openmindedness&diff=250174&oldid=146961]. [[User:JohnMalin|JohnMalin]] 19:50, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
-:::Yes it did, but since it's an essay, those comments or improvements needed to be posted and disgussed on the talk page.  Gonzo was more willing to shoot first and aks questions later.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:55, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
-Ok, well I'm interested in the discussion that was so poorly started. I don't really care if the question is about the existence of God, since that's probably a lightning rod of argument, but with the possible exception of the last question about the precision of Newtonian gravity, and I don't understand it so I say "possible", all of those questions clearly drive at "ok, lib, you really think you're open-minded?"
-I believe that the Essay would benefit from example questions like "Is it possible that President Bush knowingly presented misleading evidence to the nation, rather than by mistake?" or "Do you think that it is impossible that, through mistranslation or any other reason, the age of the Earth is misunderstood by Young Earth Creationists?" [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 20:07, 25 July 2007 (EDT) ''<-ponderously...''
-: I'm open to adding liberal questions.  I deleted an earlier attempt to do this because the questions referred to crackpot theories for which there is neither scientific nor public support, like claiming that humans were populated by UFOs from outer space.
-: I don't have any problem with the questions posed by Aziraphale above as part of a test of open-mindedness.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:42, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
-==Unclear questions==
-Interesting idea, I answered the questions. However there are two questions that are not completely clear:
-, "Do you think that there ''must'' be a material explanation for remarkable homing and migration behavior of birds and butterflies?" ''Material'' is unclear. Of course there is some physical ability that they have that allows them to home, so do you mean "naturalistic" instead, as in shaped without God?
-, "Do you think that it is possible that evolution did not occur?" I take it you mean universal common descent, so perhaps it should read "...that the theory of evolution is false?" Evolution is a vague term and it encompasses speciation and descent with modification, which are accepted by virtually everyone. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 13:23, 29 May 2009 (EDT)
-: Your point about question 8 is interesting, but I don't see how use of the term "naturalistic" improves it.  Everyone understands what "material explanation" means, but "naturalistic" is far from clear.  The question is whether the homing must be guided by something material, such as magnetism, or can it be guided by non-material phenomena, such as intelligent design that might allow for abstract programming features or divine guidance or another mechanism that transcends materialism.
-: As to question 11, I think the term "evolution" is widely understood to have the meaning that Darwin used for it.  I realize that some have attempted to change its meaning to salvage the concept, such as redefining evolution to be any change, but I'm reluctant to use jargon like "universal common descent" rather than commonly understood terminology.  Perhaps a footnote could explain further, which you're welcome to add!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:31, 29 May 2009 (EDT)
-==Unjustified Edit?==
-Regarding Question Two ("#  Have you ever admitted that something you accepted for over a decade is, in fact, completely false? "), I reversed the question to "Have you ever realized that something you accepted for over a decade was, in fact, completely false?" and it was reverted as an unjustified edit. I did this because a yes means closed-minded, while accepting and admitting that you have changed your mind on one of your long-term beliefs is more openminded. It´s the same question, but phrased differently so it doesn´t corrupt the taker´s score. [[User:MaryC|MaryC]] 17:43, 12 June 2009 (EDT)
-:You're right about the need to reverse the question to avoid corrupting the score.  Thank you.  I've made that change.  But the reason for the reversion is that you conditioned the question on a realization.  It is the closed mind that refuses to attain that realization, so that condition had to be reverted.
-:Thanks for your insightful edit and comment.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:23, 12 June 2009 (EDT)
-== Just my answers, for fun! ==
-. No, of course not.
-. A decade ago, I was 13...  so, no
-. Who would?  I'VE never been to jail, unlike basically every celebrity I can name.
-. What's that town in Montana with MANDATORY gun ownership, and ZERO crime?
-. I was 11 months old.
-. I thought SDI was demonstrated to work - haven't we shot down satellites?  Haven't the Chinese, as well?
-. I think it is unlikely, not impossible.  I've researched it a bit.
-. I think there must be an explanation, material or not.
-. No, but I think if it was there would be evidence, possibly evidence we have yet to find.
-. You can obviously measure it - take a man like [[Lee Strobel]], compare to [[Richard Dawkins]]...  there ya go!
-. It is possible, yes.
-. Actually, yes, I do think this is impossible.  Very simply, because the power of 2 wasn't arrived at by experimentation or observation, but by pure hard logic.  Additionally, in Newtonian gravity, it is 2 - that is part of what defines Newtonian gravity.  If it wasn't 2, then we wouldn't be talking about Newtonian gravity anymore.
-. A lot of what I was taught was definitely false.
-. There may be elements of Catholicism which are false, but on the whole, I'm pretty committed to it.
-I just did this for fun, don't go jumping down my throat for anything! [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 19:40, 1 October 2009 (EDT)
-: You're open-minded.  Congratulations!  (I altered two of the questions since you responded.)
-==Test Answers==
-.  No.  And I don't resist admitting the idea that a liberal, libertarian or etc., education is far more effective than a conservative education.
-.  No.  I have done this more than once throughout my life with religious and political philosophies.
-.  No.  Just as any value system has the possibility of harming different people, whether it's Hollywood values, so-called family values, religious values, secular values, etc.
-.  No.  The crime rate is affected by many variables, and using a simplistic statistic like gun ownership to predict causation for overall crime rates is nonsense.  For example, private gun ownership or a lack thereof will not affect tax cheats.
-.  No.  People and societies have overcome barriers like the Berlin Wall many times before.
-.  No.  SDI was never impossible, yet much of the technology was not practical at the time.  Even today some of the technology is still in the concept or development stage.
-.  No.  But there is very little evidence that shows the shroud was not painted by an artist.  That is why many people accept the Shroud on faith.
-.  No.  But there is plenty of natural evidence that birds use landmarks and natural direction finding to navigate.
-.  No.  The speed of light in a vacuum may have been different in the past, for example, just after the Big Bang.  But there is no convincing evidence that I know of that demonstrates the speed of light has changed over the past millennia.
-.  No.  But using a biased simplistic test is not the way to go about it.
-.  No.  There may be another explanation for life on Earth besides evolution, but the convincing evidence is not there according to 99% of the world's biologists.
-.  No.  There is a difference between 2 and 2.00000001, but why make things more difficult than what they already are?  In other words, my 20 mile trip to work would be 25 thousands of an inch longer or shorter if we used such maddening precision.
-.  No.  No one person or organization is correct all the time.  I have known for years some of what I was taught in class was false and I suspect the teachers knew it was because they were required to teach the material.
-According to Conservapedia standards, I am a very open-minded person.
---[[User:MichaelJB|MichaelJB]] 12:47, 2 October 2009 (EDT)
-: You may well be open-minded.  [[Ronald Reagan]] and other former liberals must have been open-minded or they never would have become conservatives.  The famous atheist [[Anthony Flew]] must have been open-minded or else he never would have found [[faith]] late in life.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:16, 2 October 2009 (EDT)
-==Another question==
-"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?" --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 09:12, 27 December 2009 (EST)
-==More questions==
-I added a couple of questions. Previously it was only able to discern liberal closed minded people. However being open minded means also being open minded to liberal ideas because only this way you can debunk them. Therefor it's important to have liberal questions in order to make this a better test.[[User:Marnick|Marnick]] 13:35, 25 February 2010 (EST)
-==A thought==
-I tried this test, because I think is an interesting idea. Six "yes," twelve "no." But some of these questions were confusing to me. I know your website is for mostly Americans who understand these things, but would it not be better to have more general questions? The questions about specific political issues may be hard for people who do not follow American politics. Thank you.--[[User:Wuhao1911|Wuhao1911]] 00:47, 27 February 2010 (EST)
-:Thanks for your suggestion, but could you be a bit more specific?  I glanced at the questions and they do seem to be general in nature.
-:Also, I wonder about the last one, which you added.  It's rare to find someone who thinks a democracy is ''impossible'' for a people.  Democracy may be incompatible with other forms of government, such as a theocracy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:38, 27 February 2010 (EST)
-::Most of them are general but I had troubled with 6, 7 and 8. I had to look up the Shroud of Turin, and I am not so familiar with Mr. Reagan's specific policies. As for my question, it was a thought based on what I have heard from some people. Some people think that a certain culture can be incompatable with liberty. Of course, I do not believe this. If liberty is natural state of people, then all people can enjoy it. I will accept your judgment on my question, though.--[[User:Wuhao1911|Wuhao1911]] 11:03, 27 February 2010 (EST)
-:::The Shroud of Turin (question 8) has nothing to do with America.  The Berlin Wall (question 6) was, of course, in Berlin and not America.  SDI/Star Wars (question 7) is well-known in Europe also, because some of the defenses would be put there, but I agree it may be unfamiliar to those on other continents.  I don't think these questions change the overall score significantly for those who might be unfamiliar with them.  But thanks for your suggestions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:51, 27 February 2010 (EST)
-Most of the questions seem to ask "do you think it's possible," not "do you think it's true," which is very important.  I don't buy that the Shroud of Turin is any more than a fraud (along with the rest of the relics Rome likes to peddle), but I wouldn't say it's ''impossible.'' The only one I'm inclined to say "yes" for is SDI - it's probably impossible to get it functional with today's technology, but give it a few years and we'll see, and I have to go with N/A for the Berlin Wall question, not having existed at the time. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 13:22, 27 February 2010 (EST)
-: You're right in explaining how this is a test of open-mindedness, not a test of knowledge or opinions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:31, 27 February 2010 (EST)
-::Very well, this makes sense to me. Good luck on this project.--[[User:Wuhao1911|Wuhao1911]] 14:45, 27 February 2010 (EST)
-==Link to article==
-This essay is very interesting! I am curious about the score one can achieve: is 'maximum' open-mindedness really a good thing? I have seen many talented people led astray by liberal philosophy during their studies, some going as far as to forsake their religion. In a liberal environment, open-mindedness would then be less useful than faith.
-On the question on the laws of motion, I have recently come across an article which may interest conservapedian editors:
-http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-03/spinning-disc-could-test-modified-newtonian-physics-and-kill-dark-matter-explanation
-Regards, --[[User:TSpencer|TSpencer]] 11:31, 7 March 2010 (EST)
-:Excellent link!  I've even put your story on the [[Main Page]].
-:You're point about "open-mindedness" potentially leading people astray is a valid one but only to the extent they are ''selectively'' open-minded and mostly closed-minded.  On balance I think it is the closed-mindedness that is a problem, and Paul himself described this 2000 years in [[Romans (Translated)]], as I just learned this weekend as part of my translation efforts.  Feel free to join that effort!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:51, 7 March 2010 (EST)

Difference between revisions of "Talk:Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness"

Revision as of 15:51, July 30, 2010

Navigation menu

Search