Open-mindedness as a concept is very vague and vulnerable to interpretation, I wouldn’t put much value on anything that measures open-mindedness.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Oleena wrote:<<< Well, you asked what I feel, not what I think is logically possible, so I’ll answer you with a more emotional answer than I normally would.
I feel that if there is a god power, the closest idea of what he might be is well described by the Taoist texts. They don’t describe a thinking, feeling, decision-making entity, but rather a universal pattern/force that underlies everything. This force is universal; it excludes nothing, chooses nothing, drives everything, and cannot be avoided. For this reason, nothing contrary to it could ever exist.[/quote]In short, if there’s a god at all he can never be wrong? I mean any being that might be wrong ain’t God wouldn’t ya say?[/quote]
There would be no way for it to be wrong. There wouldn’t be a stance in either direction to be wrong with. If something existed, it would be a result of it. There wouldn’t be the possibility of argument. Therefore, there’s no possibility of even thinking it’s “wrong” or disagreeing with “it”.
The problem is, I’m looking at a definition of god that resembles gravity in its properties, and you are looking at a definition of god that resembles a human. (as someone else already pointed out)
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]Oleena wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
I did not watch the video. I am working. I am responding to the still picture dialogue presented in this thread.
Your argument, if it is essentially what is represented by that opening dialogue of text, is fallacious. Basically what you are implying is that anyone who disagrees with your position–or the figure on the left of the video–is wrong by default. What you are discounting is the fact that YOU might be the one rehearsing your own prejudices when you respond, or argue.
Do you really believe that scientists and/or atheists are immune to that flaw? I am a scientist, and I have worked with them and drink with them, and relax with them. They are JUST AS GUILTY of that as “normal” people are. Sometimes they couch things in better, more erudite or obscure terms. Sometimes they are phrased just as poorly as everybody that video seems to be making fun of. And sometimes, believe it or not, these “experts” are even more retarded or prejudiced than relgious people.
Just because you don’t like the sound of something doesn’t mean theu might be right and you wrong. And just because someone is religious does not make them incapable or rational argument. And just because someone is a scientist does not make them immune to rehearsing their prejudices.[/quote]
LMAO! Watch the video. [/quote]
I watched the video. And I stand by my comments above after viewing it. The only difference is that you have been implying what I have said for a while in separate threads now, and that it is more subtle than you probably want to recognize, or perhaps you really do not recognize that this is a part of your thinking/postings. I suspect you knew that my original post had topical merit, but wanted to chastise me for not being able to watch the video a) at work without a computer connected to the internet and b) on a device to which it would not stream. I would appreciate a response to my original post now thank you.
“It is a classic debating trick to exaggerate and therefore misrepresent another person’s position.” You have been guilty of this on numerous occasions yourself.
“open-mindedness means agreeing with me”. Yes, and this is the single most widespread trick I run into. In my personal experience, it seems that those that lean to the left in political matters are almost certainly ready to use this trick, even if they don’t actually end up using it. I have run into more open-minded conservatives than I have liberals (although I am sure this is partly based on my geographical location!). The liberals I have met–and there are many–seem almost militant in their assertions that I should be more “open-minded” when they themselves are so close-minded that they are unable to carry on rational conversation with me. It should go without saying that the same is true for some conservatives I disagree with. However, on the whole I experience much more lividity and anger with liberals with whom I disagree.
The same is true in national print–by implication mostly of course since explicit mention would in most cases prevent publication of said piece. There are a number of conservatives I can point to that do the same thing of course. And there are a number of liberal thinkers I listen to for thoughtful opinions, as well as a number of left-leaning arguments I think carry weight. But, this has been my personal experience so far. I am sure “mileage” varies significantly with others.
Also RE: the people who will accept any unreliable story or testimony while being skeptical of science–I have met an equal number of scientists who are so stubborn as to refuse to even consider anything else. They are the flip side of the coin.
And, ironically, being “controlling, arrogant, and presumptuous” are faults that are extremely widespread in the science circles. As I said, often times they are simply hidden better behind technical or obscure words or terminology, or a facade of learnedness.
Are they more prevalent than the general populace? I don’t know. I somewhat doubt that, HOWEVER I believe it is in human nature to be this way and that it takes a continuous act of will to avoid it, which many many scientists do in fact lack. Most importantly, from my firsthand experiences I find it troubling that most people hold up scientists as some sort of group of super geniuses and often accept the word of scientists so uncritically, especially in the matters that science is LEAST suited to know definitively.[/quote]
I will say the one thing I didn’t like about the video was that it portrayed science as always on the side of open-mindedness and didn’t switch the two roles.
When have I been guilty of this: “It is a classic debating trick to exaggerate and therefore misrepresent another person’s position.” ? According to my recollection, I have questioned people before, but I haven’t downright said “You believe this because you said this.” I think I’ve said “You said this, which seems to indicate this. Is that true?”
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
[quote]Oleena wrote:
There have been too many logical fallacies on this site concerning religion and science to count, made by individuals allegedly on both sides of the argument. Hopefully, this helps everyone out.[/quote]
That vid makes a lot of sense. It sounds like that english dude that does the cosmology series on the discovery channel.
Anyhoo, when exchanging ideas, shooting the shit, or just fucking around in the internet, I always try to determine what someone is describing when the speak of belief. Sometimes it is hard to determine whether they are talking ideally or actually.
When people are speaking ideally or or about something that they wish were true, I handle it differently than when someone is describing what they actually believe. Sometimes they are one and the same, sometimes they aren’t.
Regardless of which, I don’t assume for even a moment that they should actually change what they believe based on my opinion of something or what they believe. Some folks do just fine in the world coping with what life has to offer based on these psychological constructs.
More often than not, there is really no need to de-construct a persons interface with the world, especially if you can’t replace it with a better one.
[/quote]
This is true. For the sake of reducing contradictions or fallacies, it it good to challenge them, though. I’m thankful people have challenged me over the years and continue to do so.
[quote]Oleena wrote:<<< There would be no way for it to be wrong. There wouldn’t be a stance in either direction to be wrong with. If something existed, it would be a result of it. There wouldn’t be the possibility of argument. Therefore, there’s no possibility of even thinking it’s “wrong” or disagreeing with “it”. >>>[/quote]What is your reason for believing this way?[quote]Oleena wrote:The problem is, I’m looking at a definition of god that resembles gravity in its properties, and you are looking at a definition of god that resembles a human. (as someone else already pointed out) >>>[/quote]Yes you are and yes I am (only in reverse for me. WE resemble HIM)). Very good indeed. You may not realize it, but the absolute whole of all human inquiry from the Greeks to the present day is wrapped up in this one sentence of yours. The 2 great epistemologys in perpetual conflict.
Can we just say that MOST people don’t have disciplined mind, thought, or argument?
For example, most people just haven’t experienced enough in terms of history, teachings, and what I would call true religion/revelation to realize that some traditions/thoughts/ideas have absolutely NO conflict or contradiction in and of themselves while others do with themselves AND science.
Science and “Supernatural” don’t necessarily contradict each other, at all. Can they? Sure.
Science tells us a lot, but there are certain things that by definition it CANNOT reveal to us, because it only is a testing of observations leading to conclusions. If you argue that the only “REAL” things are that which a human can sense or measure, I would say that you are missing out on a lot about life — and certainly not open minded.
I think our lived experience shows us a glimpse of things very hard to “observe”, “test” or describe that are truly real but can’t really be quantified. How we relate to these gives us a fullness of life not found in material things.
My thoughts.
[quote]LeanMoreThanMean wrote:
Can we just say that MOST people don’t have disciplined mind, thought, or argument?
For example, most people just haven’t experienced enough in terms of history, teachings, and what I would call true religion/revelation to realize that some traditions/thoughts/ideas have absolutely NO conflict or contradiction in and of themselves while others do with themselves AND science.
Science and “Supernatural” don’t necessarily contradict each other, at all. Can they? Sure.
Science tells us a lot, but there are certain things that by definition it CANNOT reveal to us, because it only is a testing of observations leading to conclusions. If you argue that the only “REAL” things are that which a human can sense or measure, I would say that you are missing out on a lot about life — and certainly not open minded.
I think our lived experience shows us a glimpse of things very hard to “observe”, “test” or describe that are truly real but can’t really be quantified. How we relate to these gives us a fullness of life not found in material things.
My thoughts.[/quote]
Peace brother, exhale.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Oleena wrote:<<< There would be no way for it to be wrong. There wouldn’t be a stance in either direction to be wrong with. If something existed, it would be a result of it. There wouldn’t be the possibility of argument. Therefore, there’s no possibility of even thinking it’s “wrong” or disagreeing with “it”. >>>[/quote]What is your reason for believing this way?[quote]Oleena wrote:The problem is, I’m looking at a definition of god that resembles gravity in its properties, and you are looking at a definition of god that resembles a human. (as someone else already pointed out) >>>[/quote]Yes you are and yes I am (only in reverse for me. WE resemble HIM)). Very good indeed. You may not realize it, but the absolute whole of all human inquiry from the Greeks to the present day is wrapped up in this one sentence of yours. The 2 great epistemologys in perpetual conflict.
[/quote]
I don’t know how to answer your question as to what my reason is for believing that if a god existed it would be impossible for something contrary to him to even exist, and therefore, for anyone to bring up a contrary disagreement against it. It’s like asking “what is your reason for thinking one plus one equals two” after accepting my definition of one and two.
I also don’t understand why one would think a god force would be like a human who could be argued with and made biased decisions. I simply can’t fathom why that would be.
Edit: The above is misleading. I don’t believe a god-force would even make decisions, let alone biased ones because it’s presence couldn’t be described by the word “existence” due to the dichotomy implied of “non-existence”.
[quote]Oleena wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]Oleena wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
I did not watch the video. I am working. I am responding to the still picture dialogue presented in this thread.
Your argument, if it is essentially what is represented by that opening dialogue of text, is fallacious. Basically what you are implying is that anyone who disagrees with your position–or the figure on the left of the video–is wrong by default. What you are discounting is the fact that YOU might be the one rehearsing your own prejudices when you respond, or argue.
Do you really believe that scientists and/or atheists are immune to that flaw? I am a scientist, and I have worked with them and drink with them, and relax with them. They are JUST AS GUILTY of that as “normal” people are. Sometimes they couch things in better, more erudite or obscure terms. Sometimes they are phrased just as poorly as everybody that video seems to be making fun of. And sometimes, believe it or not, these “experts” are even more retarded or prejudiced than relgious people.
Just because you don’t like the sound of something doesn’t mean theu might be right and you wrong. And just because someone is religious does not make them incapable or rational argument. And just because someone is a scientist does not make them immune to rehearsing their prejudices.[/quote]
LMAO! Watch the video. [/quote]
I watched the video. And I stand by my comments above after viewing it. The only difference is that you have been implying what I have said for a while in separate threads now, and that it is more subtle than you probably want to recognize, or perhaps you really do not recognize that this is a part of your thinking/postings. I suspect you knew that my original post had topical merit, but wanted to chastise me for not being able to watch the video a) at work without a computer connected to the internet and b) on a device to which it would not stream. I would appreciate a response to my original post now thank you.
“It is a classic debating trick to exaggerate and therefore misrepresent another person’s position.” You have been guilty of this on numerous occasions yourself.
“open-mindedness means agreeing with me”. Yes, and this is the single most widespread trick I run into. In my personal experience, it seems that those that lean to the left in political matters are almost certainly ready to use this trick, even if they don’t actually end up using it. I have run into more open-minded conservatives than I have liberals (although I am sure this is partly based on my geographical location!). The liberals I have met–and there are many–seem almost militant in their assertions that I should be more “open-minded” when they themselves are so close-minded that they are unable to carry on rational conversation with me. It should go without saying that the same is true for some conservatives I disagree with. However, on the whole I experience much more lividity and anger with liberals with whom I disagree.
The same is true in national print–by implication mostly of course since explicit mention would in most cases prevent publication of said piece. There are a number of conservatives I can point to that do the same thing of course. And there are a number of liberal thinkers I listen to for thoughtful opinions, as well as a number of left-leaning arguments I think carry weight. But, this has been my personal experience so far. I am sure “mileage” varies significantly with others.
Also RE: the people who will accept any unreliable story or testimony while being skeptical of science–I have met an equal number of scientists who are so stubborn as to refuse to even consider anything else. They are the flip side of the coin.
And, ironically, being “controlling, arrogant, and presumptuous” are faults that are extremely widespread in the science circles. As I said, often times they are simply hidden better behind technical or obscure words or terminology, or a facade of learnedness.
Are they more prevalent than the general populace? I don’t know. I somewhat doubt that, HOWEVER I believe it is in human nature to be this way and that it takes a continuous act of will to avoid it, which many many scientists do in fact lack. Most importantly, from my firsthand experiences I find it troubling that most people hold up scientists as some sort of group of super geniuses and often accept the word of scientists so uncritically, especially in the matters that science is LEAST suited to know definitively.[/quote]
I will say the one thing I didn’t like about the video was that it portrayed science as always on the side of open-mindedness and didn’t switch the two roles.
When have I been guilty of this: “It is a classic debating trick to exaggerate and therefore misrepresent another person’s position.” ? According to my recollection, I have questioned people before, but I haven’t downright said “You believe this because you said this.” I think I’ve said “You said this, which seems to indicate this. Is that true?”[/quote]
It is basically a strawman via exaggeration. It is not necessary to strictly say “You believe this because you said this” as you put it. Such a strawman or exaggeration can be implied, and that is generally the most subtle and successful version of the fallacy (as well as the most difficult to identify to oneself because it can be inadvertent). The most recently I can remember thinking that you fell into this trap was in the first abortion thread on the PWI front page. Of course, I understand that you are very invested in the argument, both from your job with the mentally disturbed/traumatized (or past job?) and your investment as a woman rather than a man (not a criticism), and that issue in particular is an extremely heated topic to talk about. I removed myself from that thread precisely because of the hot-button nature of the topic. If you wish I can (politely!) point that out in the future if other topics should bring it about…
Thanks for the response.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Thanks for the response.
[/quote]
Please do point it out in a respectful way. I apologize in advance if I get mad 
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
Open-mindedness as a concept is very vague and vulnerable to interpretation, I wouldn’t put much value on anything that measures open-mindedness.[/quote]
I think open mindedness is a relatively simple concept. The ability to challenge one’s own beliefs with out any issues. I believe it would benefit the close minded to muddle this concept
[quote]LeanMoreThanMean wrote:
Can we just say that MOST people don’t have disciplined mind, thought, or argument?
For example, most people just haven’t experienced enough in terms of history, teachings, and what I would call true religion/revelation to realize that some traditions/thoughts/ideas have absolutely NO conflict or contradiction in and of themselves while others do with themselves AND science.
Science and “Supernatural” don’t necessarily contradict each other, at all. Can they? Sure.
Science tells us a lot, but there are certain things that by definition it CANNOT reveal to us, because it only is a testing of observations leading to conclusions. If you argue that the only “REAL” things are that which a human can sense or measure, I would say that you are missing out on a lot about life — and certainly not open minded.
I think our lived experience shows us a glimpse of things very hard to “observe”, “test” or describe that are truly real but can’t really be quantified. How we relate to these gives us a fullness of life not found in material things.
My thoughts.[/quote]
Dragon’s of Eden by Carl Seagan married science and religion, one of my favorite books
[quote]Oleena wrote:<<< I don’t believe_______________________ >>>[/quote]Why not?
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Oleena wrote:<<< I don’t believe_______________________ >>>[/quote]Why not?
[/quote]
What is this in reference too? I can’t find wheere i said i dont believe in reference to anything on this thread. As for the topic of god, i already stated that my responses to you here have been based on the way i feel, not on what i know to be truth. So my answer to anything based on our discussion on this thread would be ‘because that’s how it made itself know to me’.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
Open-mindedness as a concept is very vague and vulnerable to interpretation, I wouldn’t put much value on anything that measures open-mindedness.[/quote]
I think open mindedness is a relatively simple concept. The ability to challenge one’s own beliefs with out any issues. I believe it would benefit the close minded to muddle this concept[/quote]
In practice, how can you tell if somebody is being closed minded? When they don’t agree with you?
How do you separate the close-minded from the exceptionally knowledgeable? I remember in one of my first year engineering classes a student kept talking about his idea for a perpetual motion machine. After a few seconds the professor told him it wouldn’t work and he was wrong. Without even listening to the full explanation of the idea! Was the professor being close-minded? Or did the professor simply have a much better understanding of the issue than the student?
Many of the most “close-minded” people I have met are exceptionally knowledgeable on the subject in question. It is just that they have spent significant time and effort thinking and researching the issue and have come to a firm belief. Thus when somebody throws a “fact” (usually a poorly worded attack) at them and they don’t change their mind they are seen as close-minded.
[quote]phaethon wrote:
How do you separate the close-minded from the exceptionally knowledgeable? I remember in one of my first year engineering classes a student kept talking about his idea for a perpetual motion machine. After a few seconds the professor told him it wouldn’t work and he was wrong. Without even listening to the full explanation of the idea! Was the professor being close-minded? Or did the professor simply have a much better understanding of the issue than the student?[/quote]
For all you know, that student may have discovered the key to perpetual motion (however unlikely). By not listening to the whole idea, your professor was being close minded.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]phaethon wrote:
How do you separate the close-minded from the exceptionally knowledgeable? I remember in one of my first year engineering classes a student kept talking about his idea for a perpetual motion machine. After a few seconds the professor told him it wouldn’t work and he was wrong. Without even listening to the full explanation of the idea! Was the professor being close-minded? Or did the professor simply have a much better understanding of the issue than the student?[/quote]
For all you know, that student may have discovered the key to perpetual motion (however unlikely). By not listening to the whole idea, your professor was being close minded.[/quote]
Well then being close minded is not necessarily a bad thing. In this case I think it is an extremely wise course of action. The chances of him actually “discovering” perpetual motion is extremely low. The chances of him disrupting the class for the next 20 minutes telling everyone his idea was extremely high.
Is it a good course of action for climate researchers to spend all their time listening to the claims of global warming skeptics? Every single one thinks they have “the key” to invalidating all the research. No. There is a reason scientists give more credibility to a published paper than a random person. And while that may technically be “close-minded” it is wise in an era of information overload.
[quote]phaethon wrote:
Well then being close minded is not necessarily a bad thing. In this case I think it is an extremely wise course of action. The chances of him actually “discovering” perpetual motion is extremely low. The chances of him disrupting the class for the next 20 minutes telling everyone his idea was extremely high.[/quote]
It’s not hard to say “let’s discuss it after class”.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]phaethon wrote:
Well then being close minded is not necessarily a bad thing. In this case I think it is an extremely wise course of action. The chances of him actually “discovering” perpetual motion is extremely low. The chances of him disrupting the class for the next 20 minutes telling everyone his idea was extremely high.[/quote]
It’s not hard to say “let’s discuss it after class”.[/quote]
Certainly. But is it wrong, stupid, or bad if you don’t want to discuss it or hear the idea because you know it is 99.99999% certain to be incorrect? Are you being ignorant, or immoral, when you tell the Jehovah’s Witnesses to leave you alone when they come knocking on your door?
[quote]phaethon wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]phaethon wrote:
Well then being close minded is not necessarily a bad thing. In this case I think it is an extremely wise course of action. The chances of him actually “discovering” perpetual motion is extremely low. The chances of him disrupting the class for the next 20 minutes telling everyone his idea was extremely high.[/quote]
It’s not hard to say “let’s discuss it after class”.[/quote]
Certainly. But is it wrong, stupid, or bad if you don’t want to discuss it or hear the idea because you know it is 99.99999% certain to be incorrect? Are you being ignorant, or immoral, when you tell the Jehovah’s Witnesses to leave you alone when they come knocking on your door?[/quote]
I would say numbers are on the side of the Professor, I think the Professor sounds arrogant and close minded. I would not pay any attention to the Professor , I would figure it out myself
Even if it did work the Professor would try and take credit for the patent .
It sounds like you understand that some one that does not listen or states emphatically that something is or isn’t. Saying something won’t work with out a clear explanation of why.
I do think that an opened minded person would even have to consider the close minded person may be right , But could still appriciate the person is narrow minded