Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Truth (logic)

2010-03-09T16:24:33Z

Marnick: correcting typo

In [[logic]], '''truth''' is a term used to stand for "correspondence with facts or reality". This [[Conservapedia]] entry focuses on the concept of truth as correspondence with the facts. For "truth" as related to [[God]] and [[society]], see [[truth]].

== Difficulties ==

What is meant by "the facts"? Often the term "fact" is thought to mean "something that is true". If truth is then defined as correspondence to the facts the whole descends into [[circular reasoning|cirularity]]. This gives rise to the "[[paradox]]es of truth" such as:

<blockquote>
'''[[Liar's paradox]]:''' This sentence is false
</blockquote>

If the sentence is false then it correctly describes itself and is, therefore, true. On the other hand if it is true it mis-describes itself and is, therefore, false.

[[Alfred Tarski]], in attempting to formulate a conception of truth that avoided these paradoxes, formulated a way of seperating the concept of truth from "the facts" it was to represent. His ''Semantic Theory of Truth'' held that truth was part of a [[metalanguage]], a language that talks about basic [[language]]s. The basic languages, known as "object languages" describe, or purport to decribe, the state of the world. The metalanguage then descibes whether or not the basic language has succeeded. [[Karl Popper]] recommended thinking of the languages in terms of two different [[natural language]]s. <ref>Popper, K.R. ''The Open Society and Its Enemies, Vol 2.'' Routledge. London. 1966. p 369-396</ref>. Take, for example, [[French]] as the basic language and the statement:

<blockquote>
'''Object language statement''': La neige est blanc.
</blockquote>

This makes a statement about the world. A good many statements may be made about this statement (meta-statements), one of which would be whether it is true or not. Reverting to English we may say:

<blockquote>
'''Metalanguage statement:''' "La neige est blanc" is true if, and only if, the snow is white
</blockquote>

It can be readily seen that the English statement above is not a statement about the world, but a statement about the French phrase and its ''relation'' to the world. It is a meta-statement and is true or false depending on the meaning of the French phrase rather than the actual state of the world. The English phrase would be true even if snow where turquoise.

If the liar's paradox is recast in this way the paradox disappears. "Cet enonce est faux" purports to accurately describe the world, but does it? What conditions can we attach to it, in the metalanguage, to determine when it is true and false? ""Cet enonce est faux" is true if and only if it describes a state of the world which is not the case" or, alterntively, ""Cet enonce est faux" is false if and only if it describes a state of the world which is the case". As the statement "cet enonce est faux" fails to describe a state of the world it can be neither true nor false: it is simply a meaningless string of words.
The paradox problem clearly demonstrates that real truth can never be a product of sheer logical pursuits, but rather relies on the inherent meaning of [[word|words]], as a necessary, but not sufficient [[premise]]. This points to the origin of words, or rather, the question about origin itself<ref>John 1:1, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" </ref>. Thus, no clear distinction between "logical" and "real" (divine) [[truth]] can be made.

==See also==
*[[Postmodernism]]
*[[Relativism]]

==External links==
*[http://www.iep.utm.edu/t/truth.htm Truth]

[[Category:Philosophy]]
[[Category:Logic]]

==References==
<references/>

Talk:Atheism and beliefs

2010-03-08T21:02:17Z

Marnick:

I'm not touching this, though I do think panspermia needs to be added under Origins of Life. [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 16:30, 7 January 2009 (EST)
:That's a rarely held view (I think), but it may merit inclusion if common. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 16:52, 7 January 2009 (EST)
::So is limited speech, but panspermia is still a view held by some atheists. [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 16:54, 7 January 2009 (EST)
Maybe I'm mistaken, but I thought weak atheists denied they had a belief system and strong atheists acknowledge they hold beliefs. I don't want to change anything without being sure. Can anyone clarify?[[User:MBBurke|MBBurke]] 17:36, 7 January 2009 (EST)

This article reads like a smear campaign. Surely that is not what we want to teach our children?
[[User:Jjameson|Jjameson]] 20:14, 18 March 2009 (EDT)
: I don't see anything wrong with this article, it contains factual statements with supporting citations. This sort of thing should definatly be taught in order to broader expose what our children are exposed to, instead of the current narrow bias liberal views in todays modern media. [[User:GFasten|GFasten]] 20:19, 18 March 2009 (EDT)
:: I apologize if you thought I meant that the failures of atheism should not be taught; however, some of these comments paint all atheists as Socialist, demonic freedom-haters, which surely we all know is somewhat hyperbolic. Surely sticking only to the facts about all atheists should be sufficiently convincing, or some rewording is necessary to show that not EVERY atheist described by all of these? [[User:Jjameson|Jjameson]] 20:24, 18 March 2009 (EDT)
In addition, for "Moral Superiority", a blog is referenced. Perhaps a study or poll should be used to support this more powerfully?
[[User:Jjameson|Jjameson]] 20:24, 18 March 2009 (EDT)

=="While doing his work"
All points in this article are valid. Atheists have a certain belief system. But saying they do the work of Satan is slander. I know many atheists and most of them try to do the good thing in life. There's not a single one I'd consider to be doing the work of Satan.[[User:Marnick|Marnick]] 08:45, 8 March 2010 (EST)
:Denying that God exists is doing the work of Satan, and if that's slander, oh well. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:14, 8 March 2010 (EST)
::I don't see it that way. Atheism is a belief system, just like Christianity is a belief system. We both know which one is superior but that does not make them bad people for making the wrong choice.[[User:Marnick|Marnick]] 16:02, 8 March 2010 (EST)

Talk:Atheism and beliefs

2010-03-08T13:45:28Z

Marnick:

Atheism and beliefs

2010-03-08T13:43:49Z

Marnick: /* Religion and God */

There are number of beliefs that are common among proponents of [[Western World]] [[atheism]] which will shortly be covered. Also, an examination of the subject of '''atheism and beliefs''' quickly leads to the reasonable conclusion that the [[belief|beliefs]] held in "faith" by [[atheists]] are without any supporting evidence.

== Atheism and beliefs about the origins of the universe ==
* [[Big Bang]] theory: atheists believe that the universe was created by the big bang approximately 13 billion years ago, with no plausible cause or catalyst.<ref>Gordon Stein, ''An Anthology of Atheism and Rationalism,'' 14.</ref>

== Atheism and beliefs about the origins of life ==
* [[Abiogenesis]]: atheists assert that cellular life was materialistically generated from inorganic material, the "[[primordial soup]]." Abiogenesis has not been established in any scientific study, and is profoundly unlikely, given the miniscule odds of the right mix of chemical and environment existing, which are necessary for organic life.
* Materialistic Evolution: atheists believe that all life on earth developed from the first organic cells, according to [[Darwin]]'s [[evolution|Theory of Evolution]]. Importantly, they categorically reject the potential of God's hand in this process, though without cause (see: [[Theistic evolution]] for a different take). See [[evolution|The Theory of Evolution]] for the inherent problems of this belief.

== Politics ==
* [[Socialism]]: While there are certainly atheist capitalists, many atheists in history have tended towards socialism and communism and modern [[Communism|communism was explicitly atheistic in origin]]. Many atheists believe laissez-faire capitalism is unproductive, even though capitalism has provided the greatest growth of productivity and standards of living in human history.<ref>http://www.xenos.org/essays/humnsm.htm</ref>
* Limited freedoms: atheists believe that individuals should have free speech, so long as it does not contradict atheistic or evolutionary doctrine.

== Atheism and beliefs about history ==
* Science and Christianity: atheists believe that religion is antithetical to scientific research and deny that Christianity was important to the development of science, when in fact the [[Scientific Revolution]] was brought about by scientists seeking a greater knowledge of God. <ref>http://www.adelaide.edu.au/aripl/impactawards/speaker/nicholas.pdf</ref>
* Democracy and Christianity: atheists believe that democracy does not rely on Christianity, even though they are clearly linked in Western history and no atheist democracy has ever succeeded.
*Atheists deny that many of the Founding Fathers were Christian, pretending instead that they were Deists.<ref>James Thrower, ''A Short History of Western Atheism,'' 212.</ref>

== General philosophy ==
* Naturalism: atheists believe that the universe ''only'' operates through natural processes, and is limited to what can be observed. Most scientists, (from [[Newton]] to [[Einstein]] to present) on the other hand, assert that while the observable universe follows natural processes, [[first causes]] are unknowable, and our knowledge is limited to what we can detect, leaving open the potential for the spiritual, the soul, and divine acts of God.

* Scientism: atheists believe that all knowledge and aspects of life can be refined to a science (see [[Comte]] and [[positivism]]), including religious belief, ethics, morality, and the soul.

* Human improvement: atheists believe that humans have grown increasingly moral and intelligent as time has gone on, and that people can be improved or perfected through education and [[liberal]] institution-crafting, without relying upon God to cleanse sin.<ref>http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?page=declaration&section=main</ref><ref>http://gospelcenteredmusings.com/2008/09/09/a-theological-evaluation-of-a-secular-humanist-declaration/</ref>

* Unbounded reason: atheists believe that human [[reason]] is capable of comprehending absolutely anything, a theory long since rejected by moral philosophers such as [[Kant]].<ref>James Thrower, ''A Short History of Western Atheism,'' 14.</ref>

== Religion and God ==
* Comprehensible God: extending from an arrogance in their own reason, atheists believe that if God exists, He and His works must be comprehensible. Therefore, they argue that God does not exist from paradoxes and such arguments as the [[Problem of Evil]], which God transcends.<ref>James Thrower, ''A Short History of Western Atheism,'' 33.</ref>

* Disbelief from silence: atheists believe that God does not exist, merely because there is no ''absolute'' proof that he does exist, a [[logical fallacy]]. Atheists believe that science disproves God<ref>http://www.xenos.org/essays/humnsm.htm</ref> but have no actual evidence that this is the case.

* Moral superiority: atheists believe that religion causes strife and that atheists are inherently morally superior to theists. This flies in the face of actual evidence, which shows that atheists are markedly less generous than theists.<ref>Brooks, Arthur C., [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3647/is_200310/ai_n9340592/ Religious Faith and Charitable Giving,] ''Policy Review'', Oct-Dec 2003, p.2.</ref>

* Moral relativism: atheists believe that no absolute morals exist, God-inspired or otherwise, and thus rely on vague, transient, and corrupting notions of morality.

*Satan: Atheists deny the existence of Satan.

*Superior intellect: atheists believe that atheists are inherently more intelligent than theists, and some even consider this an "inevitable product of ongoing social selection."<ref>Gordon Stein, ''An Anthology of Atheism and Rationalism,'' 164.</ref>

==See Also==
*[[Atheism and belief]]
*[[Belief in evolution]]
*[[History of Atheism]]

{{Nb_Atheism}}

== References ==
<references />

Talk:Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness

2010-02-26T14:16:30Z

Marnick: /* The gravity question */

== 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:

1. Have you seriously considered the evidence for this idea?
2. If no, then would you?
3. 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? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 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]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 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]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 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)

== The gravity question ==

I just wanted to point out that this may not be a very good measure of open mindedness. 2 and 2.00001 are arbitrary numbers, yes, but that isn't why there is an inverse square relation ship. The square of the radius in this case comes from a derivation which is a direct result of geometry. That is to say, it isn't that the variable R was saddled with some arbitrarily accurate exponent, it specifically means that the equation holds that the value of R must be multiplied by itself. If I may use a thread of logic common at conservapedia, 1+1=2, not 2.0001. Likewise, r*r=r2 not r2.00001

Open mindedness is all well and good, but I feel this question overreaches a bit, considering the fact that this proportionality holds definitively that the exponent is exactly 2.

: Thanks for your comment, but your remarks serve to illustrate how this question exposes close-mindedness. Gravity is a physical phenomenon. It's observed, not derived. Many people are trained (by atheists) to think that physics ''must'' be a certain way, rather than observing with an open mind what it actually is. Those who insist that physics must conform to mathematical expectations are ... unjustifiably closed-minded.

: Open your mind and you'll never want to go back.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:13, 14 February 2009 (EST)

:: Just to clarify, as the above user mentioned, the law of gravity is an inverse square law for a specific geometric reason. If you envision a gravitational field as a series of concentric spheres radiating outward from a body, you will see that as the surface areas of the spheres become progressively larger, the gravitational force must be spread over a greater area, and will therefore be weaker. The fact that the exponent is 2 comes from the fact that the surface area of a sphere varies with the square of the radius, not with the 2.00001th power of the radius.

:: I agree with you that observations do not always agree perfectly with theoretical models, but this is because the universe does not behave in an ideal mathematical way. Other forces (such as the gravitational fields from other planets) require that correction factors be introduced to adjust the result given by a physical equation. This does not mean the equation is wrong, only that it isn't complex enough to account for everything that is at work. Hope this helps. --[[User:Economist|Economist]] 18:29, 14 February 2009 (EST)

::: It does help ... illustrate your closed-mindedness. The "law of gravity" is a physical observation, not a postulate of Euclid. Only the closed-minded would insist that gravity cannot be inversely proportional to r2.00001. Open your mind and you'll agree. Don't and you won't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]]

::::The essay specifically says "Newtonian gravity", not "the law of gravity" (whatever that might be). In Newtonian gravity the force absolutely has to be inverse square; as was pointed out above it's a direct and simple consequence of the fact that the area of a sphere is proportional to radius squared. The same applies for other classical field theories, such as classical electromagnetism (eg, the Coulomb attraction between two point charges is inverse square). But "Newtonian gravity" is not the same thing as "the way gravity really works" - we have General Relativity after all, and doubtlessly other successful theories of gravity will be developed in future. [[User:BrianW|BrianW]] 07:13, 15 February 2009 (EST)

::::: Your comment misses the point. The phrase "Newtonian gravity" illustrates that we're talking about the law of gravity as being in rough proportion to one over distance squared. If you insist that it must be ''precisely'' r-squared, as you seem to, then your mind is inexplicably closed. Open it, and your only regret will be that you didn't open it sooner.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:48, 15 February 2009 (EST)

:::::No Andy, you're the only one missing anything here. The phrase "Newtonian gravity" means something very specific, which is a theoretical framework which leads directly to the consequence that force is inversely proportional to distance squared. Newton didn't just randomly pick 2 as the power because he felt like it; it is an immediate consequence of developing a classical field theory in a 3D space. By definition, if you had a law of gravity that isn't inverse-square (and you will note that I never claimed such a thing was impossible) then it isn't Newtonian gravity. [[User:BrianW|BrianW]] 09:00, 15 February 2009 (EST)

:::::: Brian, it's a fool's errand to argue with a closed-minded person, and I'm not interested in nitpicky semantics to justify it. Are you willing to admit that gravity, an observed phenomenon, could vary with the inverse of r2.00001? Euclidian geometry does not define gravity, and it's close-minded for anyone to imply that it does.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:11, 15 February 2009 (EST)

:::::::Yes, I agree it is entirely possible that the way gravity works in our universe is something other than an exact inverse-square law. I was only trying to point out that Newtonian gravity is a specific physical theory and also part of a specific theoretical framework. I don't see how using technical definitions in a precise and well-defined way is nit-picking: "gravity" and "Newtonian gravity" are not the same thing. [[User:BrianW|BrianW]] 09:14, 15 February 2009 (EST)

:::::::: Brian, you haven't admitted that "gravity, an observed phenomenon, could vary with the inverse of r2.00001."

:::::::: I'm not going to waste any more time debating with a closed mind. Please contribute to the encyclopedia, but I'm not optimistic about your ability to add insights. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:55, 15 February 2009 (EST)

:::::::::I never attempted to claim that mathematics "defines" physics, only that mathematical models are developed to describe physical behavior. Once again, I agree with you that real-world observations necessitate refinements to these models, but this does not invalidate the models themselves. I fail to see why this makes me "close-minded." We must understand gravity fairly well if we can land rovers on Mars! --[[User:Economist|Economist]] 23:56, 15 February 2009 (EST)

: Mr Schlafly, if I may I would like to explain a simulation I ran over a decade ago. Back in high school teachers taught about gravity. I was quick to note that the exponent 2 seemed quite arbitrary and it was the first thing I tried to disprove when I got home. So I took my laptop and ran a couple of simulations. I plotted the paths of several planets around the sun and used different formulas. First with factor 3, then 2.5, then 2.1, 2.01, 2.001, you get the point. I kept going closer to 2. The result was inviariably the same. Planets started to crash into the sun in a single orbit. The patterns were highly irregular and always involved moving through the sun. Only with exponent 2 flat the orbits remained elliptical as observed. I hope this clarifies the discussion. It's open minded to question the formula, it's open minded to test the formula and it's open minded to accept the formula once the tests come in affirmative. [[User:Marnick|Marnick]] 13:41, 25 February 2010 (EST)

:: The orbits crash ... when? The orbits are not going to be significantly different over reasonable periods of time for an exponent that only slightly differs from 2.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:54, 25 February 2010 (EST)
::: At first glance that is the most logical deduction. However I challenge you to run the simulation with any commercial or free physics or mathematic software suite. I'm sure you can give this as a homework assignment to one of your students. The orbits change in very significant ways, and as I said, they are going to move through the sun (not near, exactly through).[[User:Marnick|Marnick]] 13:56, 25 February 2010 (EST)

:::: My statement is not merely at "first glance ... the most logical deduction." It is the ''only'' logical deduction. It is true with a mathematical certainty, which is why the denial of it is so illustrative of a closed mind.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:40, 25 February 2010 (EST)

::::: You accuse ME of having a closed mind because I actually looked for evidence? The evidence might not be what you want it to be, but that doesn't make it less true. 2.00000001 will crash the planets into the sun, that's a mathematical and physical fact. I dare you to test it with a simulation, that would really show how open minded you are. Also admitting you're wrong is part of being open minded. I'm correct. Run the tests and admit it. You're so proud of your open mind, this shouldn't be a difficult task, now would it? Really mr Schlafly, run the simulation. As I said, I doubted my teacher so with my open mind I immediatly did some tests. And they confirmed what I learned. Sometimes logical deductions are simply wrong.[[User:Marnick|Marnick]] 09:16, 26 February 2010 (EST)

==Unclear questions==

Interesting idea, I answered the questions. However there are two questions that are not completely clear:
8, "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?

11, "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! ==

1. No, of course not.
2. A decade ago, I was 13... so, no
3. Who would? I'VE never been to jail, unlike basically every celebrity I can name.
4. What's that town in Montana with MANDATORY gun ownership, and ZERO crime?
5. I was 11 months old.
6. I thought SDI was demonstrated to work - haven't we shot down satellites? Haven't the Chinese, as well?
7. I think it is unlikely, not impossible. I've researched it a bit.
8. I think there must be an explanation, material or not.
9. No, but I think if it was there would be evidence, possibly evidence we have yet to find.
10. You can obviously measure it - take a man like [[Lee Strobel]], compare to [[Richard Dawkins]]... there ya go!
11. It is possible, yes.
12. 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.
13. A lot of what I was taught was definitely false.
14. 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.)

: I do think it is quite possible that the power of 2 in Newtonian gravity is not precisely exact, and that a slight deviation from 2 (such as 2.0000001) is to be expected. The physical world is not a perfect in a mathematical sense.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:05, 1 October 2009 (EDT)

:: Hmmm, that's an interesting question. It seems to me that the power of 2 would be forced to be exact if we take two other facts for granted, which seem plausible:
* The universe is a 3-dimensional Euclidean space
* Gravitational fields are divergence-free away from a source. This physically means that there is no contribution to the gravitational field of a mass from any point that's not part of the mass.
::This is basically a consequence of the [[divergence theorem]] (if I'm thinking straight). These are both basic tenets of the Newtonian picture. It's really not possible to do Newtonian mechanics where gravity is an inverse-2.00001 law: it would look to bodies as if gravitational force was being exerted by a body outside the mass in question! Similarly the fact that Coulomb's law is precisely an inverse-square law is a consequence of Gauss's law, which also follows from very basic assumptions. On the other hand, Newtonian physics isn't exact in the first place. I think I have read that gravity seems to be weaker than an inverse square law over extremely large distances (on the astronomical scale). This is because of some non-Newtonian, and perhaps not fully understood, physics. But there's no way to describe gravity in GR by something as simple as an inverse-square law anyway! --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 23:31, 1 October 2009 (EDT)

That's a great analysis, Mark. Even before the invention of calculus, Newton figured this with basic geometry, on the assumption that the force of gravity caused by a point mass would be the same in any direction, that is, at any other point at some distance from the mass. This logically means the force would be spread out equally over a sphere at a given radius r. Then the strength of the force at a point at radius r would be some "inherent" strength, divided by the area of the sphere. The surface area of a sphere is 4*pi*r^2. That is where the exponent 2 comes from.
That formula for the area is geometric; the exponent couldn't possibly be anything other than 2.
ON THE OTHER HAND, this is all in Newtonian gravity. In GR, a derivation of the exponents works similarly, but the possibility of them being slightly off 2 is equally remote, that is, 0, but even then, GR is not an ultimate formulation of gravity. Who knows how the world really works. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 23:53, 1 October 2009 (EDT)

:::::Ah, that's a better way to picture it, no need for calculus. Thanks for sharing. If only I were as smart as Newton! --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 23:58, 1 October 2009 (EDT)

::: This question is a very interesting one, but I think you'll agree after pondering it further that there is no logical obstacle to observing a gravitational force that proportional to the inverse of, say, 2.0000001. Math is fine for what it does, but mathematical elegance does not dictate physical laws.

::: Invariably math/physics types initially insist that it must be precisely 2 in order to make the integrals work nicely. But physical observation is what counts, and there is no logical obstacle to mathematical inelegance. Thanks for discussing this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:56, 1 October 2009 (EDT)

:::: Mark and Jacob, I encourage you to ponder this question (#12) further. I do think that an insistence on mathematical elegance as dictating physical phenomenon cannot withstand scrutiny.

:::: God and logic define nature, not mathematical elegance. We have to observe first, and then come up with the best math to describe the observations. There is no logical problem to 2.0000001 here. Indeed, I find it implausible to expect that exponent to be precisely 2 for our calculating convenience.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:22, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

::: I am afraid we will have to agree to disagree on this one. Is it '''possible''' that the exponent is slightly more or less than 2? Of course it is, although the difference would be amazingly small for us not to have noticed it by now. Is it likely? Well as I've said, we'll have to agree to disagree. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 00:29, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

:::: I think there was a physics paper published about a hundred years ago indicating that an observed anomaly in orbits could be explained by an exponential like 2.000001. But mathematical physicists instinctively oppose the suggestion, just as we've seen here, and moved to relativity theories rather than explore this further. After all, who would expect to win a Nobel Prize for explaining anomalies in orbit with such an inelegant approach!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:33, 2 October 2009 (EDT)
:::::If I understand correctly, it is claimed that relativity accounts for the red shift of light from deep-space objects. Would a variation in the exponent do the same? (Tapering off of gravitational wells at a distance would mean that photons would lose energy approaching us, thus drop in frequency) [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 00:41, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

::::::I don't mean to argue that it's a priori impossible that the exponent isn't exactly 2. My point is that the strength of gravity is something that's closely tied to the geometry of space, it's not just an arbitrary constant. In Newtonian mechanics, space is flat, and there's no escaping an inverse square law. If the exponent weren't exactly 2, this would just mean that space isn't quite flat. That certainly doesn't imply that the theory is wrong: relativity too is just another prediction of how space is curved! DouglasA, I'm not a physicist by any means, but that sounds plausible to me. The effect in either case would really be the same phenomenon: deviations from a flat Newtonian universe.

::::::Mr. Schlafly, I don't know about the paper you cite, but I believe there was another paper just a couple years ago arguing that redshift observations imply that gravity isn't an inverse-square law on very large scales. I'll see if I can't dig it up. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 01:01, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

:::::::I'd like to learn more about the red shift phenomenon in order to answer the question above, and welcome information here with an open mind. I'll do some looking myself too.

:::::::In reply to Mark, I agree that there is a close connection between gravity and the geometry of space. But isn't 2 and 2.0000001 close enough to satisfy that requirement? There is probably greater imprecision in simply modeling space with mathematics, don't you think?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:33, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

I know I said I wouldn't get re-involved with this debate, but let me just make a few points. Re: the red shift - yes it's true a massive object is slightly red-shifted due to the energy light loses to its gravitational field, but this effect is no stronger for distant objects than near ones, and the effect is extremely minuscule for all but the strongest gravitational fields. The red shift of distant cosmic object is a result of their incredible speed away from us, or at least their speed away from us at the time the light was emitted.

Second, 2 and 2.000001 would not be close enough to "match up" the geometry of space with the mathematics of geometry, here is why. The equation for the surface area for a perfect sphere isn't an approximation, or a guess, it's exact. Therefore, the imaginary spheres of different radii we imagine around a point mass would, if made manifest, actually have area<math>4 \pi r^2 \ </math>, and nothing else, just as the circumference of a circle is precisely <math>2\pi r \ </math>. On this, there can be no debate - it's math, not physics.

So lets move to physics now. Newtons formula for the acceleration caused on a test particle a distance r from a point mass was <math>a_g = G \frac{m_1}{r^2} \ </math>. (Marking the mass of the test particle <math>m_2 </math> gives, by <math>F=ma </math> the more familiar <math>F= G \frac{m_1 m_2}{r^2} \ </math>) Basically, what his formula for acceleration is saying is that no matter how far you are from a point mass, there is a constant effect due to that point mass' gravity, but spread out over the area of the sphere which has the radius that is the test particles distance from the point mass. Since these spheres grow larger and larger as the test particle moves away, the acceleration grows smaller.

Now, moving to physics, let's ignore all theories of relativity, just for a moment, since the question was, after all, asked about Newtonian gravity. If the force of gravity <math>a_g \propto \frac{1}{r^{2+x}}, x>0 \ </math> where x is some tiny positive number, say, 0.00001, then there are either two possibilities: you have the part of this which is due to the spreading out of the effect over the spheres, and another component, <math> G \frac{m}{r^x} </math>, which would mean the gravitational constant is not constant at all but a function of distance, OR, the surface areas of the spheres different than expected.

The former of these possibilities is what must be true if the exponent is indeed 2.0001, because the latter implies that space is negatively curved far away from the point mass, where the increased exponent would result in larger-than-Euclidean surface areas, and positively curved close in to the point mass, where the increased exponent would result in smaller surface areas - this would mean that the formula would work only for this one point mass, and no others in the universe; that this point mass occupied a place of privilege, the only part of the universe where space would be positively curved. Keep in mind this isn't the ST curvature of GR, which causes the effect we call gravity, and is itself caused by mass; this would be a curvature of 3-space independent of the mass distribution and having no properties that might be interpreted as a force.

But the former possibility is somewhat possible, that G is in fact G(r) - it's just that if this was the case, it would be far better described by saying that "the gravitational constant is a function of distance" rather than "the exponent is slightly different than 2." [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 17:42, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

: That is a fascinating analysis that I want to digest further. But my initial reaction is that the obstacle to acceptance of an exponent of 2.000001 is due to an insistence that the overall gravity field remains precisely equal over the surface of the sphere. The basic assumption of mathematics driving physics remains as the underlying fallacy. The physical world is not necessarily mathematically pure.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:25, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

:: Upon further reflection on Jacob's superb contribution, I realized that the above argument that the exponent of ''r'' must be precisely 2 is defective. It cannot be justified by the surface area of the sphere because ''Newtonian gravitation is not a wave theory''. There is no meaningful connection between the increasing surface area of a sphere as a function of ''r'' and gravitation as a function of ''r''.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:44, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

==Test Answers==
1. No. And I don't resist admitting the idea that a liberal, libertarian or etc., education is far more effective than a conservative education.

2. No. I have done this more than once throughout my life with religious and political philosophies.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. No. People and societies have overcome barriers like the Berlin Wall many times before.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. No. But there is plenty of natural evidence that birds use landmarks and natural direction finding to navigate.

9. 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.

10. No. But using a biased simplistic test is not the way to go about it.

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. 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]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 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)

Talk:Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness

2010-02-25T18:56:47Z

Marnick: /* The gravity question */

== 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:

1. Have you seriously considered the evidence for this idea?
2. If no, then would you?
3. 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? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 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]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 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]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 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)

== The gravity question ==

I just wanted to point out that this may not be a very good measure of open mindedness. 2 and 2.00001 are arbitrary numbers, yes, but that isn't why there is an inverse square relation ship. The square of the radius in this case comes from a derivation which is a direct result of geometry. That is to say, it isn't that the variable R was saddled with some arbitrarily accurate exponent, it specifically means that the equation holds that the value of R must be multiplied by itself. If I may use a thread of logic common at conservapedia, 1+1=2, not 2.0001. Likewise, r*r=r2 not r2.00001

Open mindedness is all well and good, but I feel this question overreaches a bit, considering the fact that this proportionality holds definitively that the exponent is exactly 2.

: Thanks for your comment, but your remarks serve to illustrate how this question exposes close-mindedness. Gravity is a physical phenomenon. It's observed, not derived. Many people are trained (by atheists) to think that physics ''must'' be a certain way, rather than observing with an open mind what it actually is. Those who insist that physics must conform to mathematical expectations are ... unjustifiably closed-minded.

: Open your mind and you'll never want to go back.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:13, 14 February 2009 (EST)

:: Just to clarify, as the above user mentioned, the law of gravity is an inverse square law for a specific geometric reason. If you envision a gravitational field as a series of concentric spheres radiating outward from a body, you will see that as the surface areas of the spheres become progressively larger, the gravitational force must be spread over a greater area, and will therefore be weaker. The fact that the exponent is 2 comes from the fact that the surface area of a sphere varies with the square of the radius, not with the 2.00001th power of the radius.

:: I agree with you that observations do not always agree perfectly with theoretical models, but this is because the universe does not behave in an ideal mathematical way. Other forces (such as the gravitational fields from other planets) require that correction factors be introduced to adjust the result given by a physical equation. This does not mean the equation is wrong, only that it isn't complex enough to account for everything that is at work. Hope this helps. --[[User:Economist|Economist]] 18:29, 14 February 2009 (EST)

::: It does help ... illustrate your closed-mindedness. The "law of gravity" is a physical observation, not a postulate of Euclid. Only the closed-minded would insist that gravity cannot be inversely proportional to r2.00001. Open your mind and you'll agree. Don't and you won't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]]

::::The essay specifically says "Newtonian gravity", not "the law of gravity" (whatever that might be). In Newtonian gravity the force absolutely has to be inverse square; as was pointed out above it's a direct and simple consequence of the fact that the area of a sphere is proportional to radius squared. The same applies for other classical field theories, such as classical electromagnetism (eg, the Coulomb attraction between two point charges is inverse square). But "Newtonian gravity" is not the same thing as "the way gravity really works" - we have General Relativity after all, and doubtlessly other successful theories of gravity will be developed in future. [[User:BrianW|BrianW]] 07:13, 15 February 2009 (EST)

::::: Your comment misses the point. The phrase "Newtonian gravity" illustrates that we're talking about the law of gravity as being in rough proportion to one over distance squared. If you insist that it must be ''precisely'' r-squared, as you seem to, then your mind is inexplicably closed. Open it, and your only regret will be that you didn't open it sooner.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:48, 15 February 2009 (EST)

:::::No Andy, you're the only one missing anything here. The phrase "Newtonian gravity" means something very specific, which is a theoretical framework which leads directly to the consequence that force is inversely proportional to distance squared. Newton didn't just randomly pick 2 as the power because he felt like it; it is an immediate consequence of developing a classical field theory in a 3D space. By definition, if you had a law of gravity that isn't inverse-square (and you will note that I never claimed such a thing was impossible) then it isn't Newtonian gravity. [[User:BrianW|BrianW]] 09:00, 15 February 2009 (EST)

:::::: Brian, it's a fool's errand to argue with a closed-minded person, and I'm not interested in nitpicky semantics to justify it. Are you willing to admit that gravity, an observed phenomenon, could vary with the inverse of r2.00001? Euclidian geometry does not define gravity, and it's close-minded for anyone to imply that it does.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:11, 15 February 2009 (EST)

:::::::Yes, I agree it is entirely possible that the way gravity works in our universe is something other than an exact inverse-square law. I was only trying to point out that Newtonian gravity is a specific physical theory and also part of a specific theoretical framework. I don't see how using technical definitions in a precise and well-defined way is nit-picking: "gravity" and "Newtonian gravity" are not the same thing. [[User:BrianW|BrianW]] 09:14, 15 February 2009 (EST)

:::::::: Brian, you haven't admitted that "gravity, an observed phenomenon, could vary with the inverse of r2.00001."

:::::::: I'm not going to waste any more time debating with a closed mind. Please contribute to the encyclopedia, but I'm not optimistic about your ability to add insights. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:55, 15 February 2009 (EST)

:::::::::I never attempted to claim that mathematics "defines" physics, only that mathematical models are developed to describe physical behavior. Once again, I agree with you that real-world observations necessitate refinements to these models, but this does not invalidate the models themselves. I fail to see why this makes me "close-minded." We must understand gravity fairly well if we can land rovers on Mars! --[[User:Economist|Economist]] 23:56, 15 February 2009 (EST)

: Mr Schlafly, if I may I would like to explain a simulation I ran over a decade ago. Back in high school teachers taught about gravity. I was quick to note that the exponent 2 seemed quite arbitrary and it was the first thing I tried to disprove when I got home. So I took my laptop and ran a couple of simulations. I plotted the paths of several planets around the sun and used different formulas. First with factor 3, then 2.5, then 2.1, 2.01, 2.001, you get the point. I kept going closer to 2. The result was inviariably the same. Planets started to crash into the sun in a single orbit. The patterns were highly irregular and always involved moving through the sun. Only with exponent 2 flat the orbits remained elliptical as observed. I hope this clarifies the discussion. It's open minded to question the formula, it's open minded to test the formula and it's open minded to accept the formula once the tests come in affirmative. [[User:Marnick|Marnick]] 13:41, 25 February 2010 (EST)

:: The orbits crash ... when? The orbits are not going to be significantly different over reasonable periods of time for an exponent that only slightly differs from 2.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:54, 25 February 2010 (EST)
::: At first glance that is the most logical deduction. However I challenge you to run the simulation with any commercial or free physics or mathematic software suite. I'm sure you can give this as a homework assignment to one of your students. The orbits change in very significant ways, and as I said, they are going to move through the sun (not near, exactly through).[[User:Marnick|Marnick]] 13:56, 25 February 2010 (EST)

==Unclear questions==

Interesting idea, I answered the questions. However there are two questions that are not completely clear:
8, "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?

11, "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! ==

1. No, of course not.
2. A decade ago, I was 13... so, no
3. Who would? I'VE never been to jail, unlike basically every celebrity I can name.
4. What's that town in Montana with MANDATORY gun ownership, and ZERO crime?
5. I was 11 months old.
6. I thought SDI was demonstrated to work - haven't we shot down satellites? Haven't the Chinese, as well?
7. I think it is unlikely, not impossible. I've researched it a bit.
8. I think there must be an explanation, material or not.
9. No, but I think if it was there would be evidence, possibly evidence we have yet to find.
10. You can obviously measure it - take a man like [[Lee Strobel]], compare to [[Richard Dawkins]]... there ya go!
11. It is possible, yes.
12. 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.
13. A lot of what I was taught was definitely false.
14. 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.)

: I do think it is quite possible that the power of 2 in Newtonian gravity is not precisely exact, and that a slight deviation from 2 (such as 2.0000001) is to be expected. The physical world is not a perfect in a mathematical sense.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:05, 1 October 2009 (EDT)

:: Hmmm, that's an interesting question. It seems to me that the power of 2 would be forced to be exact if we take two other facts for granted, which seem plausible:
* The universe is a 3-dimensional Euclidean space
* Gravitational fields are divergence-free away from a source. This physically means that there is no contribution to the gravitational field of a mass from any point that's not part of the mass.
::This is basically a consequence of the [[divergence theorem]] (if I'm thinking straight). These are both basic tenets of the Newtonian picture. It's really not possible to do Newtonian mechanics where gravity is an inverse-2.00001 law: it would look to bodies as if gravitational force was being exerted by a body outside the mass in question! Similarly the fact that Coulomb's law is precisely an inverse-square law is a consequence of Gauss's law, which also follows from very basic assumptions. On the other hand, Newtonian physics isn't exact in the first place. I think I have read that gravity seems to be weaker than an inverse square law over extremely large distances (on the astronomical scale). This is because of some non-Newtonian, and perhaps not fully understood, physics. But there's no way to describe gravity in GR by something as simple as an inverse-square law anyway! --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 23:31, 1 October 2009 (EDT)

That's a great analysis, Mark. Even before the invention of calculus, Newton figured this with basic geometry, on the assumption that the force of gravity caused by a point mass would be the same in any direction, that is, at any other point at some distance from the mass. This logically means the force would be spread out equally over a sphere at a given radius r. Then the strength of the force at a point at radius r would be some "inherent" strength, divided by the area of the sphere. The surface area of a sphere is 4*pi*r^2. That is where the exponent 2 comes from.
That formula for the area is geometric; the exponent couldn't possibly be anything other than 2.
ON THE OTHER HAND, this is all in Newtonian gravity. In GR, a derivation of the exponents works similarly, but the possibility of them being slightly off 2 is equally remote, that is, 0, but even then, GR is not an ultimate formulation of gravity. Who knows how the world really works. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 23:53, 1 October 2009 (EDT)

:::::Ah, that's a better way to picture it, no need for calculus. Thanks for sharing. If only I were as smart as Newton! --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 23:58, 1 October 2009 (EDT)

::: This question is a very interesting one, but I think you'll agree after pondering it further that there is no logical obstacle to observing a gravitational force that proportional to the inverse of, say, 2.0000001. Math is fine for what it does, but mathematical elegance does not dictate physical laws.

::: Invariably math/physics types initially insist that it must be precisely 2 in order to make the integrals work nicely. But physical observation is what counts, and there is no logical obstacle to mathematical inelegance. Thanks for discussing this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:56, 1 October 2009 (EDT)

:::: Mark and Jacob, I encourage you to ponder this question (#12) further. I do think that an insistence on mathematical elegance as dictating physical phenomenon cannot withstand scrutiny.

:::: God and logic define nature, not mathematical elegance. We have to observe first, and then come up with the best math to describe the observations. There is no logical problem to 2.0000001 here. Indeed, I find it implausible to expect that exponent to be precisely 2 for our calculating convenience.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:22, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

::: I am afraid we will have to agree to disagree on this one. Is it '''possible''' that the exponent is slightly more or less than 2? Of course it is, although the difference would be amazingly small for us not to have noticed it by now. Is it likely? Well as I've said, we'll have to agree to disagree. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 00:29, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

:::: I think there was a physics paper published about a hundred years ago indicating that an observed anomaly in orbits could be explained by an exponential like 2.000001. But mathematical physicists instinctively oppose the suggestion, just as we've seen here, and moved to relativity theories rather than explore this further. After all, who would expect to win a Nobel Prize for explaining anomalies in orbit with such an inelegant approach!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:33, 2 October 2009 (EDT)
:::::If I understand correctly, it is claimed that relativity accounts for the red shift of light from deep-space objects. Would a variation in the exponent do the same? (Tapering off of gravitational wells at a distance would mean that photons would lose energy approaching us, thus drop in frequency) [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 00:41, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

::::::I don't mean to argue that it's a priori impossible that the exponent isn't exactly 2. My point is that the strength of gravity is something that's closely tied to the geometry of space, it's not just an arbitrary constant. In Newtonian mechanics, space is flat, and there's no escaping an inverse square law. If the exponent weren't exactly 2, this would just mean that space isn't quite flat. That certainly doesn't imply that the theory is wrong: relativity too is just another prediction of how space is curved! DouglasA, I'm not a physicist by any means, but that sounds plausible to me. The effect in either case would really be the same phenomenon: deviations from a flat Newtonian universe.

::::::Mr. Schlafly, I don't know about the paper you cite, but I believe there was another paper just a couple years ago arguing that redshift observations imply that gravity isn't an inverse-square law on very large scales. I'll see if I can't dig it up. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 01:01, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

:::::::I'd like to learn more about the red shift phenomenon in order to answer the question above, and welcome information here with an open mind. I'll do some looking myself too.

:::::::In reply to Mark, I agree that there is a close connection between gravity and the geometry of space. But isn't 2 and 2.0000001 close enough to satisfy that requirement? There is probably greater imprecision in simply modeling space with mathematics, don't you think?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:33, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

I know I said I wouldn't get re-involved with this debate, but let me just make a few points. Re: the red shift - yes it's true a massive object is slightly red-shifted due to the energy light loses to its gravitational field, but this effect is no stronger for distant objects than near ones, and the effect is extremely minuscule for all but the strongest gravitational fields. The red shift of distant cosmic object is a result of their incredible speed away from us, or at least their speed away from us at the time the light was emitted.

Second, 2 and 2.000001 would not be close enough to "match up" the geometry of space with the mathematics of geometry, here is why. The equation for the surface area for a perfect sphere isn't an approximation, or a guess, it's exact. Therefore, the imaginary spheres of different radii we imagine around a point mass would, if made manifest, actually have area<math>4 \pi r^2 \ </math>, and nothing else, just as the circumference of a circle is precisely <math>2\pi r \ </math>. On this, there can be no debate - it's math, not physics.

So lets move to physics now. Newtons formula for the acceleration caused on a test particle a distance r from a point mass was <math>a_g = G \frac{m_1}{r^2} \ </math>. (Marking the mass of the test particle <math>m_2 </math> gives, by <math>F=ma </math> the more familiar <math>F= G \frac{m_1 m_2}{r^2} \ </math>) Basically, what his formula for acceleration is saying is that no matter how far you are from a point mass, there is a constant effect due to that point mass' gravity, but spread out over the area of the sphere which has the radius that is the test particles distance from the point mass. Since these spheres grow larger and larger as the test particle moves away, the acceleration grows smaller.

Now, moving to physics, let's ignore all theories of relativity, just for a moment, since the question was, after all, asked about Newtonian gravity. If the force of gravity <math>a_g \propto \frac{1}{r^{2+x}}, x>0 \ </math> where x is some tiny positive number, say, 0.00001, then there are either two possibilities: you have the part of this which is due to the spreading out of the effect over the spheres, and another component, <math> G \frac{m}{r^x} </math>, which would mean the gravitational constant is not constant at all but a function of distance, OR, the surface areas of the spheres different than expected.

The former of these possibilities is what must be true if the exponent is indeed 2.0001, because the latter implies that space is negatively curved far away from the point mass, where the increased exponent would result in larger-than-Euclidean surface areas, and positively curved close in to the point mass, where the increased exponent would result in smaller surface areas - this would mean that the formula would work only for this one point mass, and no others in the universe; that this point mass occupied a place of privilege, the only part of the universe where space would be positively curved. Keep in mind this isn't the ST curvature of GR, which causes the effect we call gravity, and is itself caused by mass; this would be a curvature of 3-space independent of the mass distribution and having no properties that might be interpreted as a force.

But the former possibility is somewhat possible, that G is in fact G(r) - it's just that if this was the case, it would be far better described by saying that "the gravitational constant is a function of distance" rather than "the exponent is slightly different than 2." [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 17:42, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

: That is a fascinating analysis that I want to digest further. But my initial reaction is that the obstacle to acceptance of an exponent of 2.000001 is due to an insistence that the overall gravity field remains precisely equal over the surface of the sphere. The basic assumption of mathematics driving physics remains as the underlying fallacy. The physical world is not necessarily mathematically pure.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:25, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

:: Upon further reflection on Jacob's superb contribution, I realized that the above argument that the exponent of ''r'' must be precisely 2 is defective. It cannot be justified by the surface area of the sphere because ''Newtonian gravitation is not a wave theory''. There is no meaningful connection between the increasing surface area of a sphere as a function of ''r'' and gravitation as a function of ''r''.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:44, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

==Test Answers==
1. No. And I don't resist admitting the idea that a liberal, libertarian or etc., education is far more effective than a conservative education.

2. No. I have done this more than once throughout my life with religious and political philosophies.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. No. People and societies have overcome barriers like the Berlin Wall many times before.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. No. But there is plenty of natural evidence that birds use landmarks and natural direction finding to navigate.

9. 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.

10. No. But using a biased simplistic test is not the way to go about it.

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. 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]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 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)

Talk:Information

2010-02-25T18:53:10Z

Marnick: /* 2nd Law */

== Attribution ==

With such a controversial topic it is essential to add proper attribution to claims. Unless you can objectively prove that information can only come into existence by intelligent means, then it is inappropriate to state something as fact. [[User:RDre|RDre]] 11:36, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:Science does not "prove", but can succeed or fail to disprove. Can you dispute (disprove) the claim? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:42, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
::Perhaps we'd do better to defer this discussion until we've got a neutral description of what information theory actually states. Once we've got that down, then we could discuss its implications. Thoughts? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 11:45, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:::A neutral definition would be helpful. However, attribution would still be useful anyway. [[User:RDre|RDre]] 11:48, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Is there such a thing as a neutral description? {{unsigned|Philip J. Rayment}}

::::I think so, yes. We all agree on the definitions of Shannon information, or Kolmogorov complexity, or whatever. The conclusions one draws from the field are another matter. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 06:49, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::I actually meant to question the possibility of a neutral description ''in this particular case'', as it impinges on people's worldviews, unlike Shannon information, etc. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:38, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::Oh. No, whether or not intelligence can derive from anything but intelligence is probably going to remain an issue of contention. But having a neutral description of the basics down might help resolve it. As it stands, it's not even clear what the claim is supposed to mean. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 07:42, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

== 2nd Law ==

Wait a second...is the Second Law of Thermodynamics really up for debate here? The amount of information (a.k.a. "entropy") in a system will always decrease over time, with or without the presence/action of intelligence. This is elementary-school-level material, folks. {{unsigned|Pohl}}
: Information is not entropy, although there is a connection. To the extent that they are related, entropy ''increases'' as information ''decreases''. Entropy is the amount of ''disorder'' in a system, whereas information is analogous to the amount of ''order''. Also, the 2nd law applies to a ''closed'' system. Information can be added from outside an open system, or, obviously, from an intelligence (the source of all information). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:33, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

== Example of new information through random process ==

Some time ago I was typing my name. I couldn't type blind very well at that time so I made quite some mistakes. We can all agree that these mistakes are purely random, when you're learning something, you make random mistakes. While I was typing my name I realized that I had made an error. Instead of Marnick I had typed Harnick. At first glance this is a loss of information, as my name was lost. However it sounded cool and I decided to keep that mistake as a handle on online discussion boards. So by pure chance new information was generated, namely a new name to use online. I acted as natural selection on my own mistake, almost all mistakes will be corrected but sometimes a mistake induces new information. When that information is useful it will be retained. This is the basis for evolution. [[User:Marnick|Marnick]] 13:53, 25 February 2010 (EST)

Talk:Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness

2010-02-25T18:41:08Z

Marnick: /* The gravity question */

== 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:

1. Have you seriously considered the evidence for this idea?
2. If no, then would you?
3. 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? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 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]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 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]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 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)

== The gravity question ==

I just wanted to point out that this may not be a very good measure of open mindedness. 2 and 2.00001 are arbitrary numbers, yes, but that isn't why there is an inverse square relation ship. The square of the radius in this case comes from a derivation which is a direct result of geometry. That is to say, it isn't that the variable R was saddled with some arbitrarily accurate exponent, it specifically means that the equation holds that the value of R must be multiplied by itself. If I may use a thread of logic common at conservapedia, 1+1=2, not 2.0001. Likewise, r*r=r2 not r2.00001

Open mindedness is all well and good, but I feel this question overreaches a bit, considering the fact that this proportionality holds definitively that the exponent is exactly 2.

: Thanks for your comment, but your remarks serve to illustrate how this question exposes close-mindedness. Gravity is a physical phenomenon. It's observed, not derived. Many people are trained (by atheists) to think that physics ''must'' be a certain way, rather than observing with an open mind what it actually is. Those who insist that physics must conform to mathematical expectations are ... unjustifiably closed-minded.

: Open your mind and you'll never want to go back.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:13, 14 February 2009 (EST)

:: Just to clarify, as the above user mentioned, the law of gravity is an inverse square law for a specific geometric reason. If you envision a gravitational field as a series of concentric spheres radiating outward from a body, you will see that as the surface areas of the spheres become progressively larger, the gravitational force must be spread over a greater area, and will therefore be weaker. The fact that the exponent is 2 comes from the fact that the surface area of a sphere varies with the square of the radius, not with the 2.00001th power of the radius.

:: I agree with you that observations do not always agree perfectly with theoretical models, but this is because the universe does not behave in an ideal mathematical way. Other forces (such as the gravitational fields from other planets) require that correction factors be introduced to adjust the result given by a physical equation. This does not mean the equation is wrong, only that it isn't complex enough to account for everything that is at work. Hope this helps. --[[User:Economist|Economist]] 18:29, 14 February 2009 (EST)

::: It does help ... illustrate your closed-mindedness. The "law of gravity" is a physical observation, not a postulate of Euclid. Only the closed-minded would insist that gravity cannot be inversely proportional to r2.00001. Open your mind and you'll agree. Don't and you won't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]]

::::The essay specifically says "Newtonian gravity", not "the law of gravity" (whatever that might be). In Newtonian gravity the force absolutely has to be inverse square; as was pointed out above it's a direct and simple consequence of the fact that the area of a sphere is proportional to radius squared. The same applies for other classical field theories, such as classical electromagnetism (eg, the Coulomb attraction between two point charges is inverse square). But "Newtonian gravity" is not the same thing as "the way gravity really works" - we have General Relativity after all, and doubtlessly other successful theories of gravity will be developed in future. [[User:BrianW|BrianW]] 07:13, 15 February 2009 (EST)

::::: Your comment misses the point. The phrase "Newtonian gravity" illustrates that we're talking about the law of gravity as being in rough proportion to one over distance squared. If you insist that it must be ''precisely'' r-squared, as you seem to, then your mind is inexplicably closed. Open it, and your only regret will be that you didn't open it sooner.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:48, 15 February 2009 (EST)

:::::No Andy, you're the only one missing anything here. The phrase "Newtonian gravity" means something very specific, which is a theoretical framework which leads directly to the consequence that force is inversely proportional to distance squared. Newton didn't just randomly pick 2 as the power because he felt like it; it is an immediate consequence of developing a classical field theory in a 3D space. By definition, if you had a law of gravity that isn't inverse-square (and you will note that I never claimed such a thing was impossible) then it isn't Newtonian gravity. [[User:BrianW|BrianW]] 09:00, 15 February 2009 (EST)

:::::: Brian, it's a fool's errand to argue with a closed-minded person, and I'm not interested in nitpicky semantics to justify it. Are you willing to admit that gravity, an observed phenomenon, could vary with the inverse of r2.00001? Euclidian geometry does not define gravity, and it's close-minded for anyone to imply that it does.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:11, 15 February 2009 (EST)

:::::::Yes, I agree it is entirely possible that the way gravity works in our universe is something other than an exact inverse-square law. I was only trying to point out that Newtonian gravity is a specific physical theory and also part of a specific theoretical framework. I don't see how using technical definitions in a precise and well-defined way is nit-picking: "gravity" and "Newtonian gravity" are not the same thing. [[User:BrianW|BrianW]] 09:14, 15 February 2009 (EST)

:::::::: Brian, you haven't admitted that "gravity, an observed phenomenon, could vary with the inverse of r2.00001."

:::::::: I'm not going to waste any more time debating with a closed mind. Please contribute to the encyclopedia, but I'm not optimistic about your ability to add insights. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:55, 15 February 2009 (EST)

:::::::::I never attempted to claim that mathematics "defines" physics, only that mathematical models are developed to describe physical behavior. Once again, I agree with you that real-world observations necessitate refinements to these models, but this does not invalidate the models themselves. I fail to see why this makes me "close-minded." We must understand gravity fairly well if we can land rovers on Mars! --[[User:Economist|Economist]] 23:56, 15 February 2009 (EST)

: Mr Schlafly, if I may I would like to explain a simulation I ran over a decade ago. Back in high school teachers taught about gravity. I was quick to note that the exponent 2 seemed quite arbitrary and it was the first thing I tried to disprove when I got home. So I took my laptop and ran a couple of simulations. I plotted the paths of several planets around the sun and used different formulas. First with factor 3, then 2.5, then 2.1, 2.01, 2.001, you get the point. I kept going closer to 2. The result was inviariably the same. Planets started to crash into the sun in a single orbit. The patterns were highly irregular and always involved moving through the sun. Only with exponent 2 flat the orbits remained elliptical as observed. I hope this clarifies the discussion. It's open minded to question the formula, it's open minded to test the formula and it's open minded to accept the formula once the tests come in affirmative. [[User:Marnick|Marnick]] 13:41, 25 February 2010 (EST)

==Unclear questions==

Interesting idea, I answered the questions. However there are two questions that are not completely clear:
8, "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?

11, "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! ==

1. No, of course not.
2. A decade ago, I was 13... so, no
3. Who would? I'VE never been to jail, unlike basically every celebrity I can name.
4. What's that town in Montana with MANDATORY gun ownership, and ZERO crime?
5. I was 11 months old.
6. I thought SDI was demonstrated to work - haven't we shot down satellites? Haven't the Chinese, as well?
7. I think it is unlikely, not impossible. I've researched it a bit.
8. I think there must be an explanation, material or not.
9. No, but I think if it was there would be evidence, possibly evidence we have yet to find.
10. You can obviously measure it - take a man like [[Lee Strobel]], compare to [[Richard Dawkins]]... there ya go!
11. It is possible, yes.
12. 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.
13. A lot of what I was taught was definitely false.
14. 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.)

: I do think it is quite possible that the power of 2 in Newtonian gravity is not precisely exact, and that a slight deviation from 2 (such as 2.0000001) is to be expected. The physical world is not a perfect in a mathematical sense.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:05, 1 October 2009 (EDT)

:: Hmmm, that's an interesting question. It seems to me that the power of 2 would be forced to be exact if we take two other facts for granted, which seem plausible:
* The universe is a 3-dimensional Euclidean space
* Gravitational fields are divergence-free away from a source. This physically means that there is no contribution to the gravitational field of a mass from any point that's not part of the mass.
::This is basically a consequence of the [[divergence theorem]] (if I'm thinking straight). These are both basic tenets of the Newtonian picture. It's really not possible to do Newtonian mechanics where gravity is an inverse-2.00001 law: it would look to bodies as if gravitational force was being exerted by a body outside the mass in question! Similarly the fact that Coulomb's law is precisely an inverse-square law is a consequence of Gauss's law, which also follows from very basic assumptions. On the other hand, Newtonian physics isn't exact in the first place. I think I have read that gravity seems to be weaker than an inverse square law over extremely large distances (on the astronomical scale). This is because of some non-Newtonian, and perhaps not fully understood, physics. But there's no way to describe gravity in GR by something as simple as an inverse-square law anyway! --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 23:31, 1 October 2009 (EDT)

That's a great analysis, Mark. Even before the invention of calculus, Newton figured this with basic geometry, on the assumption that the force of gravity caused by a point mass would be the same in any direction, that is, at any other point at some distance from the mass. This logically means the force would be spread out equally over a sphere at a given radius r. Then the strength of the force at a point at radius r would be some "inherent" strength, divided by the area of the sphere. The surface area of a sphere is 4*pi*r^2. That is where the exponent 2 comes from.
That formula for the area is geometric; the exponent couldn't possibly be anything other than 2.
ON THE OTHER HAND, this is all in Newtonian gravity. In GR, a derivation of the exponents works similarly, but the possibility of them being slightly off 2 is equally remote, that is, 0, but even then, GR is not an ultimate formulation of gravity. Who knows how the world really works. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 23:53, 1 October 2009 (EDT)

:::::Ah, that's a better way to picture it, no need for calculus. Thanks for sharing. If only I were as smart as Newton! --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 23:58, 1 October 2009 (EDT)

::: This question is a very interesting one, but I think you'll agree after pondering it further that there is no logical obstacle to observing a gravitational force that proportional to the inverse of, say, 2.0000001. Math is fine for what it does, but mathematical elegance does not dictate physical laws.

::: Invariably math/physics types initially insist that it must be precisely 2 in order to make the integrals work nicely. But physical observation is what counts, and there is no logical obstacle to mathematical inelegance. Thanks for discussing this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:56, 1 October 2009 (EDT)

:::: Mark and Jacob, I encourage you to ponder this question (#12) further. I do think that an insistence on mathematical elegance as dictating physical phenomenon cannot withstand scrutiny.

:::: God and logic define nature, not mathematical elegance. We have to observe first, and then come up with the best math to describe the observations. There is no logical problem to 2.0000001 here. Indeed, I find it implausible to expect that exponent to be precisely 2 for our calculating convenience.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:22, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

::: I am afraid we will have to agree to disagree on this one. Is it '''possible''' that the exponent is slightly more or less than 2? Of course it is, although the difference would be amazingly small for us not to have noticed it by now. Is it likely? Well as I've said, we'll have to agree to disagree. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 00:29, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

:::: I think there was a physics paper published about a hundred years ago indicating that an observed anomaly in orbits could be explained by an exponential like 2.000001. But mathematical physicists instinctively oppose the suggestion, just as we've seen here, and moved to relativity theories rather than explore this further. After all, who would expect to win a Nobel Prize for explaining anomalies in orbit with such an inelegant approach!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:33, 2 October 2009 (EDT)
:::::If I understand correctly, it is claimed that relativity accounts for the red shift of light from deep-space objects. Would a variation in the exponent do the same? (Tapering off of gravitational wells at a distance would mean that photons would lose energy approaching us, thus drop in frequency) [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 00:41, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

::::::I don't mean to argue that it's a priori impossible that the exponent isn't exactly 2. My point is that the strength of gravity is something that's closely tied to the geometry of space, it's not just an arbitrary constant. In Newtonian mechanics, space is flat, and there's no escaping an inverse square law. If the exponent weren't exactly 2, this would just mean that space isn't quite flat. That certainly doesn't imply that the theory is wrong: relativity too is just another prediction of how space is curved! DouglasA, I'm not a physicist by any means, but that sounds plausible to me. The effect in either case would really be the same phenomenon: deviations from a flat Newtonian universe.

::::::Mr. Schlafly, I don't know about the paper you cite, but I believe there was another paper just a couple years ago arguing that redshift observations imply that gravity isn't an inverse-square law on very large scales. I'll see if I can't dig it up. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 01:01, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

:::::::I'd like to learn more about the red shift phenomenon in order to answer the question above, and welcome information here with an open mind. I'll do some looking myself too.

:::::::In reply to Mark, I agree that there is a close connection between gravity and the geometry of space. But isn't 2 and 2.0000001 close enough to satisfy that requirement? There is probably greater imprecision in simply modeling space with mathematics, don't you think?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:33, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

I know I said I wouldn't get re-involved with this debate, but let me just make a few points. Re: the red shift - yes it's true a massive object is slightly red-shifted due to the energy light loses to its gravitational field, but this effect is no stronger for distant objects than near ones, and the effect is extremely minuscule for all but the strongest gravitational fields. The red shift of distant cosmic object is a result of their incredible speed away from us, or at least their speed away from us at the time the light was emitted.

Second, 2 and 2.000001 would not be close enough to "match up" the geometry of space with the mathematics of geometry, here is why. The equation for the surface area for a perfect sphere isn't an approximation, or a guess, it's exact. Therefore, the imaginary spheres of different radii we imagine around a point mass would, if made manifest, actually have area<math>4 \pi r^2 \ </math>, and nothing else, just as the circumference of a circle is precisely <math>2\pi r \ </math>. On this, there can be no debate - it's math, not physics.

So lets move to physics now. Newtons formula for the acceleration caused on a test particle a distance r from a point mass was <math>a_g = G \frac{m_1}{r^2} \ </math>. (Marking the mass of the test particle <math>m_2 </math> gives, by <math>F=ma </math> the more familiar <math>F= G \frac{m_1 m_2}{r^2} \ </math>) Basically, what his formula for acceleration is saying is that no matter how far you are from a point mass, there is a constant effect due to that point mass' gravity, but spread out over the area of the sphere which has the radius that is the test particles distance from the point mass. Since these spheres grow larger and larger as the test particle moves away, the acceleration grows smaller.

Now, moving to physics, let's ignore all theories of relativity, just for a moment, since the question was, after all, asked about Newtonian gravity. If the force of gravity <math>a_g \propto \frac{1}{r^{2+x}}, x>0 \ </math> where x is some tiny positive number, say, 0.00001, then there are either two possibilities: you have the part of this which is due to the spreading out of the effect over the spheres, and another component, <math> G \frac{m}{r^x} </math>, which would mean the gravitational constant is not constant at all but a function of distance, OR, the surface areas of the spheres different than expected.

The former of these possibilities is what must be true if the exponent is indeed 2.0001, because the latter implies that space is negatively curved far away from the point mass, where the increased exponent would result in larger-than-Euclidean surface areas, and positively curved close in to the point mass, where the increased exponent would result in smaller surface areas - this would mean that the formula would work only for this one point mass, and no others in the universe; that this point mass occupied a place of privilege, the only part of the universe where space would be positively curved. Keep in mind this isn't the ST curvature of GR, which causes the effect we call gravity, and is itself caused by mass; this would be a curvature of 3-space independent of the mass distribution and having no properties that might be interpreted as a force.

But the former possibility is somewhat possible, that G is in fact G(r) - it's just that if this was the case, it would be far better described by saying that "the gravitational constant is a function of distance" rather than "the exponent is slightly different than 2." [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 17:42, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

: That is a fascinating analysis that I want to digest further. But my initial reaction is that the obstacle to acceptance of an exponent of 2.000001 is due to an insistence that the overall gravity field remains precisely equal over the surface of the sphere. The basic assumption of mathematics driving physics remains as the underlying fallacy. The physical world is not necessarily mathematically pure.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:25, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

:: Upon further reflection on Jacob's superb contribution, I realized that the above argument that the exponent of ''r'' must be precisely 2 is defective. It cannot be justified by the surface area of the sphere because ''Newtonian gravitation is not a wave theory''. There is no meaningful connection between the increasing surface area of a sphere as a function of ''r'' and gravitation as a function of ''r''.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:44, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

==Test Answers==
1. No. And I don't resist admitting the idea that a liberal, libertarian or etc., education is far more effective than a conservative education.

2. No. I have done this more than once throughout my life with religious and political philosophies.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. No. People and societies have overcome barriers like the Berlin Wall many times before.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. No. But there is plenty of natural evidence that birds use landmarks and natural direction finding to navigate.

9. 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.

10. No. But using a biased simplistic test is not the way to go about it.

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. 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]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 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)

Talk:Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness

2010-02-25T18:35:45Z

Marnick: /* Another question */

== 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:

1. Have you seriously considered the evidence for this idea?
2. If no, then would you?
3. 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? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 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]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 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]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 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)

== The gravity question ==

I just wanted to point out that this may not be a very good measure of open mindedness. 2 and 2.00001 are arbitrary numbers, yes, but that isn't why there is an inverse square relation ship. The square of the radius in this case comes from a derivation which is a direct result of geometry. That is to say, it isn't that the variable R was saddled with some arbitrarily accurate exponent, it specifically means that the equation holds that the value of R must be multiplied by itself. If I may use a thread of logic common at conservapedia, 1+1=2, not 2.0001. Likewise, r*r=r2 not r2.00001

Open mindedness is all well and good, but I feel this question overreaches a bit, considering the fact that this proportionality holds definitively that the exponent is exactly 2.

: Thanks for your comment, but your remarks serve to illustrate how this question exposes close-mindedness. Gravity is a physical phenomenon. It's observed, not derived. Many people are trained (by atheists) to think that physics ''must'' be a certain way, rather than observing with an open mind what it actually is. Those who insist that physics must conform to mathematical expectations are ... unjustifiably closed-minded.

: Open your mind and you'll never want to go back.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:13, 14 February 2009 (EST)

:: Just to clarify, as the above user mentioned, the law of gravity is an inverse square law for a specific geometric reason. If you envision a gravitational field as a series of concentric spheres radiating outward from a body, you will see that as the surface areas of the spheres become progressively larger, the gravitational force must be spread over a greater area, and will therefore be weaker. The fact that the exponent is 2 comes from the fact that the surface area of a sphere varies with the square of the radius, not with the 2.00001th power of the radius.

:: I agree with you that observations do not always agree perfectly with theoretical models, but this is because the universe does not behave in an ideal mathematical way. Other forces (such as the gravitational fields from other planets) require that correction factors be introduced to adjust the result given by a physical equation. This does not mean the equation is wrong, only that it isn't complex enough to account for everything that is at work. Hope this helps. --[[User:Economist|Economist]] 18:29, 14 February 2009 (EST)

::: It does help ... illustrate your closed-mindedness. The "law of gravity" is a physical observation, not a postulate of Euclid. Only the closed-minded would insist that gravity cannot be inversely proportional to r2.00001. Open your mind and you'll agree. Don't and you won't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]]

::::The essay specifically says "Newtonian gravity", not "the law of gravity" (whatever that might be). In Newtonian gravity the force absolutely has to be inverse square; as was pointed out above it's a direct and simple consequence of the fact that the area of a sphere is proportional to radius squared. The same applies for other classical field theories, such as classical electromagnetism (eg, the Coulomb attraction between two point charges is inverse square). But "Newtonian gravity" is not the same thing as "the way gravity really works" - we have General Relativity after all, and doubtlessly other successful theories of gravity will be developed in future. [[User:BrianW|BrianW]] 07:13, 15 February 2009 (EST)

::::: Your comment misses the point. The phrase "Newtonian gravity" illustrates that we're talking about the law of gravity as being in rough proportion to one over distance squared. If you insist that it must be ''precisely'' r-squared, as you seem to, then your mind is inexplicably closed. Open it, and your only regret will be that you didn't open it sooner.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:48, 15 February 2009 (EST)

:::::No Andy, you're the only one missing anything here. The phrase "Newtonian gravity" means something very specific, which is a theoretical framework which leads directly to the consequence that force is inversely proportional to distance squared. Newton didn't just randomly pick 2 as the power because he felt like it; it is an immediate consequence of developing a classical field theory in a 3D space. By definition, if you had a law of gravity that isn't inverse-square (and you will note that I never claimed such a thing was impossible) then it isn't Newtonian gravity. [[User:BrianW|BrianW]] 09:00, 15 February 2009 (EST)

:::::: Brian, it's a fool's errand to argue with a closed-minded person, and I'm not interested in nitpicky semantics to justify it. Are you willing to admit that gravity, an observed phenomenon, could vary with the inverse of r2.00001? Euclidian geometry does not define gravity, and it's close-minded for anyone to imply that it does.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:11, 15 February 2009 (EST)

:::::::Yes, I agree it is entirely possible that the way gravity works in our universe is something other than an exact inverse-square law. I was only trying to point out that Newtonian gravity is a specific physical theory and also part of a specific theoretical framework. I don't see how using technical definitions in a precise and well-defined way is nit-picking: "gravity" and "Newtonian gravity" are not the same thing. [[User:BrianW|BrianW]] 09:14, 15 February 2009 (EST)

:::::::: Brian, you haven't admitted that "gravity, an observed phenomenon, could vary with the inverse of r2.00001."

:::::::: I'm not going to waste any more time debating with a closed mind. Please contribute to the encyclopedia, but I'm not optimistic about your ability to add insights. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:55, 15 February 2009 (EST)

:::::::::I never attempted to claim that mathematics "defines" physics, only that mathematical models are developed to describe physical behavior. Once again, I agree with you that real-world observations necessitate refinements to these models, but this does not invalidate the models themselves. I fail to see why this makes me "close-minded." We must understand gravity fairly well if we can land rovers on Mars! --[[User:Economist|Economist]] 23:56, 15 February 2009 (EST)

==Unclear questions==

Interesting idea, I answered the questions. However there are two questions that are not completely clear:
8, "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?

11, "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! ==

1. No, of course not.
2. A decade ago, I was 13... so, no
3. Who would? I'VE never been to jail, unlike basically every celebrity I can name.
4. What's that town in Montana with MANDATORY gun ownership, and ZERO crime?
5. I was 11 months old.
6. I thought SDI was demonstrated to work - haven't we shot down satellites? Haven't the Chinese, as well?
7. I think it is unlikely, not impossible. I've researched it a bit.
8. I think there must be an explanation, material or not.
9. No, but I think if it was there would be evidence, possibly evidence we have yet to find.
10. You can obviously measure it - take a man like [[Lee Strobel]], compare to [[Richard Dawkins]]... there ya go!
11. It is possible, yes.
12. 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.
13. A lot of what I was taught was definitely false.
14. 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.)

: I do think it is quite possible that the power of 2 in Newtonian gravity is not precisely exact, and that a slight deviation from 2 (such as 2.0000001) is to be expected. The physical world is not a perfect in a mathematical sense.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:05, 1 October 2009 (EDT)

:: Hmmm, that's an interesting question. It seems to me that the power of 2 would be forced to be exact if we take two other facts for granted, which seem plausible:
* The universe is a 3-dimensional Euclidean space
* Gravitational fields are divergence-free away from a source. This physically means that there is no contribution to the gravitational field of a mass from any point that's not part of the mass.
::This is basically a consequence of the [[divergence theorem]] (if I'm thinking straight). These are both basic tenets of the Newtonian picture. It's really not possible to do Newtonian mechanics where gravity is an inverse-2.00001 law: it would look to bodies as if gravitational force was being exerted by a body outside the mass in question! Similarly the fact that Coulomb's law is precisely an inverse-square law is a consequence of Gauss's law, which also follows from very basic assumptions. On the other hand, Newtonian physics isn't exact in the first place. I think I have read that gravity seems to be weaker than an inverse square law over extremely large distances (on the astronomical scale). This is because of some non-Newtonian, and perhaps not fully understood, physics. But there's no way to describe gravity in GR by something as simple as an inverse-square law anyway! --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 23:31, 1 October 2009 (EDT)

That's a great analysis, Mark. Even before the invention of calculus, Newton figured this with basic geometry, on the assumption that the force of gravity caused by a point mass would be the same in any direction, that is, at any other point at some distance from the mass. This logically means the force would be spread out equally over a sphere at a given radius r. Then the strength of the force at a point at radius r would be some "inherent" strength, divided by the area of the sphere. The surface area of a sphere is 4*pi*r^2. That is where the exponent 2 comes from.
That formula for the area is geometric; the exponent couldn't possibly be anything other than 2.
ON THE OTHER HAND, this is all in Newtonian gravity. In GR, a derivation of the exponents works similarly, but the possibility of them being slightly off 2 is equally remote, that is, 0, but even then, GR is not an ultimate formulation of gravity. Who knows how the world really works. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 23:53, 1 October 2009 (EDT)

:::::Ah, that's a better way to picture it, no need for calculus. Thanks for sharing. If only I were as smart as Newton! --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 23:58, 1 October 2009 (EDT)

::: This question is a very interesting one, but I think you'll agree after pondering it further that there is no logical obstacle to observing a gravitational force that proportional to the inverse of, say, 2.0000001. Math is fine for what it does, but mathematical elegance does not dictate physical laws.

::: Invariably math/physics types initially insist that it must be precisely 2 in order to make the integrals work nicely. But physical observation is what counts, and there is no logical obstacle to mathematical inelegance. Thanks for discussing this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:56, 1 October 2009 (EDT)

:::: Mark and Jacob, I encourage you to ponder this question (#12) further. I do think that an insistence on mathematical elegance as dictating physical phenomenon cannot withstand scrutiny.

:::: God and logic define nature, not mathematical elegance. We have to observe first, and then come up with the best math to describe the observations. There is no logical problem to 2.0000001 here. Indeed, I find it implausible to expect that exponent to be precisely 2 for our calculating convenience.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:22, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

::: I am afraid we will have to agree to disagree on this one. Is it '''possible''' that the exponent is slightly more or less than 2? Of course it is, although the difference would be amazingly small for us not to have noticed it by now. Is it likely? Well as I've said, we'll have to agree to disagree. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 00:29, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

:::: I think there was a physics paper published about a hundred years ago indicating that an observed anomaly in orbits could be explained by an exponential like 2.000001. But mathematical physicists instinctively oppose the suggestion, just as we've seen here, and moved to relativity theories rather than explore this further. After all, who would expect to win a Nobel Prize for explaining anomalies in orbit with such an inelegant approach!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:33, 2 October 2009 (EDT)
:::::If I understand correctly, it is claimed that relativity accounts for the red shift of light from deep-space objects. Would a variation in the exponent do the same? (Tapering off of gravitational wells at a distance would mean that photons would lose energy approaching us, thus drop in frequency) [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 00:41, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

::::::I don't mean to argue that it's a priori impossible that the exponent isn't exactly 2. My point is that the strength of gravity is something that's closely tied to the geometry of space, it's not just an arbitrary constant. In Newtonian mechanics, space is flat, and there's no escaping an inverse square law. If the exponent weren't exactly 2, this would just mean that space isn't quite flat. That certainly doesn't imply that the theory is wrong: relativity too is just another prediction of how space is curved! DouglasA, I'm not a physicist by any means, but that sounds plausible to me. The effect in either case would really be the same phenomenon: deviations from a flat Newtonian universe.

::::::Mr. Schlafly, I don't know about the paper you cite, but I believe there was another paper just a couple years ago arguing that redshift observations imply that gravity isn't an inverse-square law on very large scales. I'll see if I can't dig it up. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 01:01, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

:::::::I'd like to learn more about the red shift phenomenon in order to answer the question above, and welcome information here with an open mind. I'll do some looking myself too.

:::::::In reply to Mark, I agree that there is a close connection between gravity and the geometry of space. But isn't 2 and 2.0000001 close enough to satisfy that requirement? There is probably greater imprecision in simply modeling space with mathematics, don't you think?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:33, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

I know I said I wouldn't get re-involved with this debate, but let me just make a few points. Re: the red shift - yes it's true a massive object is slightly red-shifted due to the energy light loses to its gravitational field, but this effect is no stronger for distant objects than near ones, and the effect is extremely minuscule for all but the strongest gravitational fields. The red shift of distant cosmic object is a result of their incredible speed away from us, or at least their speed away from us at the time the light was emitted.

Second, 2 and 2.000001 would not be close enough to "match up" the geometry of space with the mathematics of geometry, here is why. The equation for the surface area for a perfect sphere isn't an approximation, or a guess, it's exact. Therefore, the imaginary spheres of different radii we imagine around a point mass would, if made manifest, actually have area<math>4 \pi r^2 \ </math>, and nothing else, just as the circumference of a circle is precisely <math>2\pi r \ </math>. On this, there can be no debate - it's math, not physics.

So lets move to physics now. Newtons formula for the acceleration caused on a test particle a distance r from a point mass was <math>a_g = G \frac{m_1}{r^2} \ </math>. (Marking the mass of the test particle <math>m_2 </math> gives, by <math>F=ma </math> the more familiar <math>F= G \frac{m_1 m_2}{r^2} \ </math>) Basically, what his formula for acceleration is saying is that no matter how far you are from a point mass, there is a constant effect due to that point mass' gravity, but spread out over the area of the sphere which has the radius that is the test particles distance from the point mass. Since these spheres grow larger and larger as the test particle moves away, the acceleration grows smaller.

Now, moving to physics, let's ignore all theories of relativity, just for a moment, since the question was, after all, asked about Newtonian gravity. If the force of gravity <math>a_g \propto \frac{1}{r^{2+x}}, x>0 \ </math> where x is some tiny positive number, say, 0.00001, then there are either two possibilities: you have the part of this which is due to the spreading out of the effect over the spheres, and another component, <math> G \frac{m}{r^x} </math>, which would mean the gravitational constant is not constant at all but a function of distance, OR, the surface areas of the spheres different than expected.

The former of these possibilities is what must be true if the exponent is indeed 2.0001, because the latter implies that space is negatively curved far away from the point mass, where the increased exponent would result in larger-than-Euclidean surface areas, and positively curved close in to the point mass, where the increased exponent would result in smaller surface areas - this would mean that the formula would work only for this one point mass, and no others in the universe; that this point mass occupied a place of privilege, the only part of the universe where space would be positively curved. Keep in mind this isn't the ST curvature of GR, which causes the effect we call gravity, and is itself caused by mass; this would be a curvature of 3-space independent of the mass distribution and having no properties that might be interpreted as a force.

But the former possibility is somewhat possible, that G is in fact G(r) - it's just that if this was the case, it would be far better described by saying that "the gravitational constant is a function of distance" rather than "the exponent is slightly different than 2." [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 17:42, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

: That is a fascinating analysis that I want to digest further. But my initial reaction is that the obstacle to acceptance of an exponent of 2.000001 is due to an insistence that the overall gravity field remains precisely equal over the surface of the sphere. The basic assumption of mathematics driving physics remains as the underlying fallacy. The physical world is not necessarily mathematically pure.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:25, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

:: Upon further reflection on Jacob's superb contribution, I realized that the above argument that the exponent of ''r'' must be precisely 2 is defective. It cannot be justified by the surface area of the sphere because ''Newtonian gravitation is not a wave theory''. There is no meaningful connection between the increasing surface area of a sphere as a function of ''r'' and gravitation as a function of ''r''.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:44, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

==Test Answers==
1. No. And I don't resist admitting the idea that a liberal, libertarian or etc., education is far more effective than a conservative education.

2. No. I have done this more than once throughout my life with religious and political philosophies.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. No. People and societies have overcome barriers like the Berlin Wall many times before.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. No. But there is plenty of natural evidence that birds use landmarks and natural direction finding to navigate.

9. 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.

10. No. But using a biased simplistic test is not the way to go about it.

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. 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]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 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)

Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness

2010-02-25T18:33:33Z

Marnick: /* Example Questions and Topics */

We quantify intelligence (IQ), academic performance (grades), body weight (pounds or kilograms), running speed, and all sorts of other personal characteristics. But perhaps more useful than any of those numbers would be a measure of open-mindedness.

By "open-mindedness" I mean a genuine willingness to consider the evidence before rejecting an idea. I do not mean tolerance, or a rejection of absolute truth, or [[skepticism]]. Open-mindedness means here what the dictionary says: "receptive to arguments or ideas."<ref>http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=open-mindedness</ref>

One way to measure open-mindedness is to test for close-mindedness, and then take the converse. A subject for our measurement can be asked if he views certain proposals as impossible. By impossible I do not mean mathematically impossible, but so unlikely as to be considered absurd. Belief in impossibility is a sign of close-mindedness, because it reflects the unwillingness of the subject to be "receptive" to the possibility.

== Example Questions and Topics ==

# Do you resist admitting the possibility that a conservative approach to education is far more effective for students than a [[liberal]] one?
# 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?
# Do you resist admitting that something you accepted for over a decade is, in fact, completely false?
# Do you resist the possibility that [[Hollywood values]] result in significant harm for those who believe in them, and to innocent bystanders?
# Do you think it is impossible that increased gun ownership reduces the rate of crime?
# 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?
# Do you believe that there isn't a single good thing about socialism?
# Did you think, or still think, that the [[Strategic Defense Initiative]] ("Star Wars") is impossible?
# Do you think that it is impossible that the [[Shroud of Turin]] is authentic?
# Do you accept as fact that God is the only explanation for the world as we know it?
# Do you think that there ''must'' be a material explanation for remarkable [[homing]] and [[migration]] behavior of birds and butterflies?
# Do you think that it is impossible for the speed of light to have been different in the past?
# Do you think that it is impossible to measure openmindedness?
# Are you absolutely sure that Osama Bin Laden organized 9/11?
# Do you think that evolution <ref>By "evolution" is meant the theory of evolution, especially universal common descent.</ref> ''must'' have occurred?
# 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?
# Do you believe there are never good reasons for abortion in certain circumstances?
# 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?
# Do you deny that some widely required theories of science may actually impede the progress of science?
# 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?

The above questions can be asked, and one's closed-mindedness can be scored based on how often they answered "yes" above. Answering more than half as "yes" reflects acute closed-mindedness.

== Follow-Up Questions ==

For each topic, a short set of follow-up questions is appropriate:

'''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 open-mindedness.

: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 open-mindedness.

::2bb. If more than 1 hour, then ... [Optional question: When, where, what and how did you review the evidence? If the answers are consistent with your claim of spending more than an hour, then ...] ... you gain a point for open-mindedness.

::2bc. If you have not reviewed the evidence due to lack of time or interest, have you formed an opinion about the idea anyway?

== Further Refinements ==

A more sophisticated approach would be to replace the time threshold (an hour in the above example) with an analog version or formula that converted time spent reviewing the evidence of a new idea into a a variable for openmindedness. For example, the open-mindedness variable O could be:

:<math>O = t/60</math>

where t is the time spent in minutes. O could then be summed over a series of topics, and normalized by dividing it by the number of topics.

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:Essays]]