Open-mindedness

@William,

William;84559 wrote:

I think he who is open-minded leaves all possibilities on the table and open for discussion until they can proven "positively" false

...except those based on tangible evidence. They must be discarded immediately.

@odenskrigare,

odenskrigare;84562 wrote:

...except those based on tangible evidence. They must be discarded immediately.

You are entitled to think as you wish, as for me I totally disagree. There are some things we cannot touch that do exist. Just because we can't see or touch them doesn't mean they "are not there". I explained that. In the future, if you don't mind, if you are going to parse my posts, please do so in their entirety. Thank you.

william

@William,

William;84563 wrote:

You are entitled to think as you wish, as for me I totally disagree. There are some things we cannot touch that do exist. Just because we can't see or touch them doesn't mean they "are not there". I explained that. In the future, if you don't mind, if you are going to parse my posts, please do so in their entirety. Thank you.

william

well yes William I agree come to think of it

I believe in a demon of ten-thousand heads named Dhaakhra who defeated the Dark Enemy Haa'zhalka several eternities before the creation of the Universe

though I have no evidence for His existence whatever, I know that He exists, and that anyone who does not believe in Him will be cast into one of the many the Abodes of Damnation where the enemies of Dhaakhra will be punished until the end of time, then made slaves to those who faithfully served Him in life in Paradise

so prove that He doesn't exist! checkmate atheists!

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;84540 wrote:

But what if a person has a clear conception of a ghost?

Two possibilities: One;

He has a conception of something physically measurable (has physical effects), then we have a valid hypothesis that we can test, and if evidence permits his position it will hold until it is either shown to be the case or shown not to be the case. Pretty simple.

Two;

He has a conception of something that is not physically measurable (has no physical effects), so it is not ontologically valid. Therefore it would have no bearing on any phenomena and so is not a possible cause. Also pretty simple.

---------- Post added 08-20-2009 at 05:49 PM ----------

William;84559 wrote:

I think he who is open-minded leaves all possibilities on the table and open for discussion until they can proven "positively" false. It is the attempt of the close-minded to close those open minds which the video is trying to do in offering the analogies it did. A very subtle ploy of those who think they know everything, IMO. There are phenomena that occur in this reality of which many experience, such as coincidences and prodigious savants that can more accurately be define as a different sensory perception, if not "extra", that differ's from what is commonly espoused. The close minded choose not to recognize those and totally ignore them for it would not appear to be intelligent in that others might consider them "dumb", to consider them. Yes, this is an assumption on my part, but I feel there is evidence to support it such as the video did in offering his definitions of open and close minded of which I think he tried to confuse the two. IMO.

William

The rational mind excludes those that cannot be assessed to any degree one way or another. The rational mind demands clarity in what is proposed. If what is proposed is not sufficiently clear, then no judgment can be made about it so it has no real explanatory value.

Everything that can be sensed can be sensed because it has a physical effect, do you agree with that? If something has a physical effect, then it can be measured, do you agree with that?

If you agree with both of those, then it follows that every sensible event is measurable and physical (which are really the same thing). If an event is not measurable, it has no effect since an effect is measurable apriori. So any event must be physical in nature, thus 'supernatural event' or 'supernatural being' are both self contradictory. The only reason I can see that you would disagree with me is that you assign different meanings to the words in question. My source is the dictionary.

Supernatural:
1 : of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil
2 a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature b : attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit)

Clearly my argument works for 1, so lets look at 2. Appears is a key word in 2a, it appears to transcend the laws of nature. Clearly this is due to a misconception of what 'the laws of nature' refers to. The appearance would certainly seem reasonable if one thought that the laws of nature were those that we knew of and had mathematical models of, but this is not the case. We have approximations of the observed behavior of nature, but we have no 'laws of nature'. The laws of nature are not known to us and fall into the category of unknowable. We do not have any say over them. If a phenomena occurs that does not fit with our current models, we have to adapt the models to better approximate what really is happening. Nothing violates 'the laws of nature', only our observation based models.

2b is not sufficiently clear or specific.

@odenskrigare,

both of you are damned by Dhaakhra, the Great Devastator, the Foe of Haa'zhalka, He of Ten-Thousand Heads, the Supreme Lord of Sentient Beings, the God of Sixty Names, the Just, the Terrible

unless you have evidence He doesn't exist

@odenskrigare,

odenskrigare;84567 wrote:

well yes William I agree come to think of it

Thank you.

odenskrigare;84567 wrote:

I believe in a demon of ten-thousand heads named Dhaakhra who defeated the Dark Enemy Haa'zhalka several eternities before the creation of the Universe

though I have no evidence for His existence whatever, I know that He exists, and that anyone who does not believe in Him will be cast into one of the many the Abodes of Damnation where the enemies of Dhaakhra will be punished until the end of time, then made slaves to those who faithfully served Him in life in Paradise

Great, being as openminded as I am, I will consider it and on put it on the table.

odenskrigare;84567 wrote:

so prove that He doesn't exist!

I just said I will consider it. It is your belief! It is up to you to prove it!. I can't "disprove it", and why would I try? It doesn't bother me one way or the other. Why would I try to insult what you believe. For my own gratifiction? I wouldn't think of it!

odenskrigare;84567 wrote:

checkmate atheists!

Checkmate? How can that be? Well it is your thread and if it is a matter of win or lose, then assume your victory is that is indeed what you are looking for. Now wasn't that considerate of me? :a-ok:

William

@William,

William;84576 wrote:

Great, being as openminded as I am, I will consider it and on put it on the table.

you must believe in the True Religion, Dhaakhra-shkai, or suffer eternal damnation!

William;84576 wrote:

I just said I will consider it. It is your belief! It is up to you to prove it!

ahhhhhh there's the rub

if you want us to believe in or even entertain your belief in supernatural phenomena, the burden of proof is YOU!!

@odenskrigare,

Sitting back and declaring something a fact just because it is written in a book by one scientists is just as lazy as the goddidit method.

The opposite of lazy IMHO would be any mind making an effort to learn what is fact and what is theory and knowing the difference between the two. Or a mind striving to learn all they can about the complex matters of life and creation.

But sitting back in a chair and refuting all of the great minds of history using only one side of a scientific debate as your credibility..... LAAAAZY!

@odenskrigare,

odenskrigare;84577 wrote:

you must believe in the True Religion, Dhaakhra-shkai, or suffer eternal damnation!

ahhhhhh there's the rub

if you want us to believe in or even entertain your belief in supernatural phenomena, the burden of proof is YOU!!

I thought we were taling about open mindedness? Believe it or not, most of faith have no desire to "prove" what they believe. It is only when the close minded try to insult them and what they believe they get alarmed, just as what your video did. Those of faith don't wish to prove anything. Your tactic has been used for years and yet you fail to see it. At any rate it is your thread. I might add, as far as closed mindedness, I have yet to see a tear well up in the eye of one who is so disposed. Never. Don't assume I am talking about tears of sorrow either. There are many enriching things in life that cause them to appear. :a-ok:

William

@William,

Pathfinder;84585 wrote:

Sitting back and declaring something a fact just because it is written in a book by one scientists is just as lazy as the goddidit method.

What did I declare a fact because it was "written in a book by 'one' scientist"

Pathfinder;84585 wrote:

The opposite of lazy IMHO would be any mind making an effort to learn what is fact and what is theory and knowing the difference between the two.

Well, as far as inductive reasoning goes, what we call "facts" are the culminations of "theories"

The only iron-clad facts are deductive, so it looks like you're splitting hairs

Pathfinder;84585 wrote:

But sitting back in a chair and refuting all of the great minds of history using only one side of a scientific debate as your credibility..... LAAAAZY!

What great minds, what one side of a scientific debate

Am I supposed to entertain Aristotelian physics because Aristotle was a great mind and believed differently than current physicists?

William;84588 wrote:

I thought we were taling about open mindedness? Believe it or not, most of faith have no desire to "prove" what they believe.

Except how many of them like to ram it down their impressionable kids' throats, threaten people with hellfire, ostracize non-believers, stand on university campi and in subway terminals waving holy texts and even go as far as to blow themselves up

When's the last time somebody made a suicide bomb of himself over science?

William;84588 wrote:

It is only when the close minded try to insult them and what they believe they get alarmed, just as what your video did.

The video is drawing attention to the fact that people believe things without a shred of evidence and then expect others to do so.

Like that lampshade: the guy's neighbor insisted a ghost was making it move, then he turned off the heater and it stopped moving.

Who was the close-minded one there huh?

@odenskrigare,

Oden;

What do Evangelists have to do with the superstitious? It is comparing the brainwashed to the confused. The confused can be helped, the brainwashed can't be.

Also, you got your quotes mixed up; in your last quotation you quoted William but labeled it as Pathfinder. Just FYI.

@odenskrigare,

Quote:

I think he who is open-minded leaves all possibilities on the table and open for discussion until they can proven "positively" false.

In one way I agree with this statement however wouldn't it also at the same time be automatically qualifying something as being "positively true" if you are making decisions based on it being unproven?

For example, let's use my favorite flying pink elephant. To use your statement, we can honestly hold up your argument. I can not prove nor disprove that flying pink elephants exist, so I should maintain an open mind towards their existence. They could exist just on a different planet or what ever. However if I am making choices and decisions based on the flying pink elephants existence, then I am already implying that the flying pink elephant exists even though it has not be proven TO exist. This type of behavior is worse than simply being close minded.

So what sort of choices does the flying pink elephant not want you to do? Well the flying pink elephant doesn't want you to consume peanuts or peanut butter. So if you were making life choice to avoid eating peanut butter than you are making an indirect statement that the flying pink elephant exists. It get's worse if you are trying to tell others that they should also not eat peanut butter, because it will piss off the flying pink elephant.

@Zetetic11235,

Zetetic11235;84599 wrote:

Oden;

What do Evangelists have to do with the superstitious? It is comparing the brainwashed to the confused. The confused can be helped, the brainwashed can't be.

I'm not sure what you mean

and even the brainwashed can sometimes be helped

Zetetic11235;84599 wrote:

Also, you got your quotes mixed up; in your last quotation you quoted William but labeled it as Pathfinder. Just FYI.

thanks for noticing, I updated

@odenskrigare,

odenskrigare;84606 wrote:

I'm not sure what you mean

and even the brainwashed can sometimes be helped

The video seems to be directed more towards the confused than the brainwashed. I think that it is certainly a very different (and much easier) task to help the confused than the brainwashed. I have never seen an Evangelist that hates Darwin become a reasonable human being just by engaging in discourse over a period of time. I have seen (and helped in the process) confused people become less confused even if their confusion is very fundamental.

odenskrigare;84606 wrote:

thanks for noticing, I updated

You're welcome.

@odenskrigare,

Doctors Michael Shermer and Susan Blackmore could have been counted among the brainwashed at one point

@odenskrigare,

It seems like (at least for Shermer) the academic environment was a major contribution to their development. Shermer had lengthy discussions with his professors that fostered his skepticism and re-evaluation of his beliefs. Blackmore seems like a much less severe case. She had some goofy ideas and wanted to explore them. She then realized that they were flawed and abandoned them.

Neither of these people remind me of the typical southern baptist.

@odenskrigare,

do you have a lot of them in your area

I'm back in (eastern) Pennsylvania actually until fall semester and I have to say I'm glad I was spared the religious zealotry and absolute utter boredom that is most of western Pennsylvania

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;83997 wrote:

That doesn't seem right to me. If a person says that something cannot be explained scientifically, he isn't saying that it cannot be explained,

This explanation will have to be more fully developed. What would it mean to explain something scientifically in your eyes, then, kennethamy? I would really hope to see a good presentation on this.

@William,

William;84559 wrote:

I think he who is open-minded leaves all possibilities on the table and open for discussion until they can proven "positively" false. It is the attempt of the close-minded to close those open minds which the video is trying to do in offering the analogies it did. A very subtle ploy of those who think they know everything, IMO. There are phenomena that occur in this reality of which many experience, such as coincidences and prodigious savants that can more accurately be define as a different sensory perception, if not "extra", that differ's from what is commonly espoused. The close minded choose not to recognize those and totally ignore them for it would not appear to be intelligent in that others might consider them "dumb", to consider them. Yes, this is an assumption on my part, but I feel there is evidence to support it such as the video did in offering his definitions of open and close minded of which I think he tried to confuse the two. IMO.

William

I dont see malicious intent in the video nor I see closed-mindness on it, what I see is attempts to help people reconize when they or others are asking for belief under absurd conditions, such as wanting people to believe god exists winhout proof, or wanting people to believe god doesnt exists winhout proof. its not talking about "being on the wall"

odenskrigare;84562 wrote:

...except those based on tangible evidence. They must be discarded immediately.

He never said that

odenskrigare;84573 wrote:

unless you have evidence He doesn't exist

He came to my house and told me, in secret, that he doesnt exists, then dissapeared in a puff of logic.

odenskrigare;84577 wrote:

if you want us to believe in or even entertain your belief in supernatural phenomena, the burden of proof is YOU!!

He never said he wanted to, either.

odenskrigare;84597 wrote:

When's the last time somebody made a suicide bomb of himself over science?

Science is NOT the opposite of religion or a faction, it is a concept. Religion is a concept as well. People dont blow thenselves over religion, they blow thenselves over THEIR religions.

If some influent scientist started claiming that he had proof that heaven existed and that people who exploded thenselves inside churches would go to it, be sure we would have fireworks =)

Zetetic11235;84599 wrote:

What do Evangelists have to do with the superstitious? It is comparing the brainwashed to the confused. The confused can be helped, the brainwashed can't be.

Brainwash then again =)

Off course, that would require restraining then and other ilegal activities.

@manored,

Ideally everyone would question everything honestly and see what is left after their questioning. They would constantly re-evaluate and try to understand what is around them. They would get used to the fear of uncertainty and embrace uncertainty but still act decisively and with certainty when it is needed.

Uncertainty is needed for evaluation, certainty is needed in a pinch.

Philosophy Forum

Open-mindedness

Quick Links

My Account

able2know