So you think you've got an open mind?

[LORD_RED_DRAGON]

Speaking scientifically, this is not the way science works. Perhaps thats the way it should work, but it really doesnt. I believe strongly in science, but Im willing to see the flaws inherent. Basically, the philosophy of science is based on paradigms. Whenever a prevailing paradigm is favored, all research is based upon it, and something counter to the paradigm will be met with firm resistance, even in the face of strong evidence. The new paradigm will often only overtake the old because of younger new scientists not brought up with the old paradigm, or because of some brilliant mechanism that wasnt available at the time.

Take for example...plate tectonics. In the late 19th century, the idea of moving continents was thoroughly ignored, because the prevailing paradigm was stationary continents, and that was the basis for the work being done. Even though moving continents had ample evidence, there was no mechanism, so the scientists HAD to refute it. It wasnt until someone (i forget who at the moment) came up with plate tectonics that continental drift became accepted and part of scientific theory.

Also, its deceiving the way science is presented...once a new theory usurps an old one, the old one vanishes from textbooks never to be heard of again. I doubt hardly any life science/chemistry majors in school right now know that not too long ago, scientists thought that the phlogiston was the thing that caused stuff to burn. Suggesting it was an element called oxygen in those days would have been laughed at.

My point is that while I do think science is getting more and more accurate with time, and I feel strongly about it, because thats what I want to do with my life...I admit the system isnt perfect, because when you have been taught under a paradigm, its hard to think outside that umbrella of theories.

the inteligent guy came back woo-hoo
maybe now the threads will stop being so...unintelligent

 

[Vital Remains]

Id like to say that im open minded, and i think its funny that alot of metalheads will say the are open minded because they are different or some shit, but theyre not and im not either. I hate rap music i wont even try listening to it i hate it so much, i hate the whole concept of homsexuality but im nice to their faces, i hate country music, i hate tomatoes, i hate carharrt jackets, i hate the color pink, and alot of other shit too. so im close minded. fuck it.

 

[Akirahito]

Norsemaiden...that was a great post. Hats off. I think the world, as a whole, could largely benefit from an open mind and being able to think about other people, and cultures, from a relative viewpoint. Relativism is one of the greatest challenges and benefits that we can utilize to further our own intelligence (whether one is well educated or not). It's also the only real bridge I have ever seen between the philosophical and the logical.

 

[Norsemaiden]

You can hate all that and still be open minded. It is possible.(What Vital Remains said)

 

[Norsemaiden]

Norsemaiden...that was a great post. Hats off. I think the world, as a whole, could largely benefit from an open mind and being able to think about other people, and cultures, from a relative viewpoint. Relativism is one of the greatest challenges and benefits that we can utilize to further our own intelligence (whether one is well educated or not). It's also the only real bridge I have ever seen between the philosophical and the logical.

Thanks for the complement! Actually I have a problem with relativism. As I understand it, relativism is the idea that no idea is better or worse or more valid than another idea - only different. That would mean that the Christian biblical view of the world was as valid as the non-religious scientific view. So I don't agree with that. You can take as a starting point that you should consider the validity of all different ideas, without prejudice, but having thought it through and gathered what evidence you can it should be the case that some ideas are much more sensible than others.

 

[Demiurge]

I'm pretty open minded .. I accept things before I doubt, while most people doubt before they accept.

That is not open-mindedness, it is naïveté. Being "open-minded" is not the antipode of having a skeptical mind. Actually, they complement each other quite nicely.

 

[LORD_RED_DRAGON]

That is not open-mindedness, it is naïveté. Being "open-minded" is not the antipode of having a skeptical mind. Actually, they complement each other quite nicely.

you misspelled antidote

 

[Birkenau]

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=antipode

 

[judas69]

That is not open-mindedness, it is naïveté. Being "open-minded" is not the antipode of having skeptical mind. Actually, they complement each other quite nicely.

Well, a skeptical mind habitually doubts (even widely accepted views) and isn't impartial. An open-minded person does not habitually doubt, and is impartial. That said, I don't see any "complement" there at all.

The naive person on the other hand (unlike the skeptic and the open-minded individual) lacks any critical thinking process in the first place .. and is ignorant.

Accepting someones claim on it's own merits is not ignorant or naive.

 

[Demiurge]

you misspelled antidote

No, I did not.

Well, a skeptical mind habitually doubts (even widely accepted views)...

Widely accepted views are sometimes mistaken and judgment should be withheld until more evidence is accumulated than that they are widely accepted. If you simply accept them, there is little need for any evidence.

...and is impartial.

Not in the way I meant it, which isn't bias in favor of denying a claim and is best stated as withholding judgment.

That said, I don't see any "complement" there at all.

I do. One must remain open to new information and be willing to question it rigorously, rather than as you said "accepting before doubting."

The naive person on the other hand (unlike the skeptic and the open-minded individual) lacks any critical thinking process in the first place .. and is ignorant.

True, but your open-mindedness is naïveté.

Accepting someones claim on it's own merits is not ignorant or naive.

Once again, you will not discern its merit without being skeptical. You will be a conjecturer.

 

[judas69]

Once again, you will not discern its merit without being skeptical. You will be a conjecturer.

One could still be critical, and not be a skeptic or a conjecturer. *sigh*

 

[Demiurge]

One could still be critical, and not be a skeptic or a conjecturer. *sigh*

Being critical is contrary to being a conjecturer, so yes, that is correct. I did not state otherwise, however. If you are not skeptical, though, how can you be critical? Note that I do not mean a radical epistemological skepticism, but rather the willingness to withhold judgment until a time at which enough evidence has accumulated to reach a decision. If you do not withhold judgment and you accept things before doubting them then you are not critical and you are not ascertaining the truth of a claim based on its merits. Quite the opposite.

I accept things before I doubt, while most people doubt before they accept.

The above quote is not representative of a critical or skeptical mind, but of a conjecturer.

 

[judas69]

If you are not skeptical, though, how can you be critical?

For example:

Person A - the skeptic - does not agree there is an intelligent creator because there is not enough evidence.

Person B - the non-skeptic non-naive critical thinker - can say he believes in a creator by means of the Ontological argument which is logically valid, and without scientific evidence.

Being open-minded, I can accept Person B's belief in a creator and his critical approach ..and of course, not be Naive. Any of my own personal doubts thus, would not override my "open-mindedness" to accept this arguement impartially (which is what being open-minded is about - impartiality).

I accept things before I doubt, while most people doubt before they accept.

Definition: Critical Thinking
The mental process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and evaluating information to reach an answer or conclusion.

 

[LORD_RED_DRAGON]

For example:

Person A - the skeptic - does not agree there is an intelligent creator because there is not enough evidence.

Person B - the non-skeptic non-naive critical thinker - can say he believes in a creator by means of the Ontological argument which is logically valid, and without scientific evidence.

Being open-minded, I can accept Person B's belief in a creator and his critical approach ..and of course, not be Naive. Any of my own personal doubts thus, would not override my "open-mindedness" to accept this arguement impartially (which is what being open-minded is about - impartiality)

i agree