Are You Open-Minded?

[marxvlog]

What an utter load of crap. Watch over your video and tell me with a straight face you actually believe the contradictory rubbish contained within You sir are a moron. 

[tafxkz]

he thinks "thinking is thinking what he thinks is thinking"

[ArchitectOfEvil]

@perfectshot77 You are a sad soul. Just keep fantasizing. God will take you to the Sun will he? Won't you melt long before you get there? How could it be possible?

If God "walked" to me then it would probably be a person and not God, and the trip to the Sun would be me drugged and made to keep my eyes open and watch a video of the Sun.

No I don't believe that such fucking rubbish and nonsense could ever happen. That's how I think.

Don't worry about me, it's definitely you that is lacking thought

[ArchitectOfEvil]

@perfectshot77 An agnostic may feel that it is close minded to be objective and make a decision without proof that a God does not exist. But negative affirmations are impossible to prove. It is not scientific.

You can only prove that a God does not exist if you never find one, but it will be said that you haven't looked far enough so to speak. It is impossible prove. You can only prove a positive when you find it is true.

That is why I am atheist and not agnostic. I make logical inferences.

[ArchitectOfEvil]

@perfectshot77 You are talking absolute shit.

Just shut the hell up if you have nothing intelligent or sensible to say, instead of being open minded and letting your brain fall out.

You are taking what I say completely out of context. You have little capacity for analysis and evaluation.

Stick to what you know... Monkey see Monkey do.

[ArchitectOfEvil]

@perfectshot77 Gremlins or Santa may be real. Just as real as God. The same evidence exists for both. No evidence!

[Karoogirl84]

Well Said

[MrGogify]

Then what do you call a person who questions everything and does not have "principles" ?

[0NobodyNonameetc]

Mr. Cropper: I like your way of thinking, but... you say that you accepts things like you exist, you are counscious... all right with these, but "things are what they are"... well... there are lots of very important thinkers and philosophers in this world that won´t agree with you in that point. Also about "evidence"...

I recomend you that you read a lot more of philosophy. Specially I recomend you to read oriental philosophies, just because I like them. Do as you want, of course.

[DavidMarine]

Bertrand Russell, Albert Einstein, Marie Currie, Jorge Luis Borges: agnostics all. Do you believe that these people accepted things uncritically? Did not think about things?

[abuseforapie]

When a human being speculates that they themselves are open minded, it is quite obvious that they are close minded.

[amnm1000]

He seems to hate agnostics more than theists...

Btw it's a good video. Thumbs up.

-agnostic

[AlexanderLee1]

Very good video.

[billybbob18]

I'm open-minded about being closed minded. lol

[ThePogoTube]

@carpnter2000 ummm, circular definition much?

ps good video, solid premise. I didn't agree will all of it but isn't that what learning is all about?

Thank you

[Zoza15]

Open Mind does not link to Another Perspective of view...

[will44666]

to be honest you are looking at and discussing these concepts in a very simple way / the term open minded is just a term - how can you categories these things the way you do as if it is a black and white matter - it is a very maleable term - open / closed minded

[carpnter2000]

I disagree with you on this one. Being open minded in my opinion is just being receptive to new ideas whether or not they have merit is another subject all together. If I am open to a new idea or way of doing something, does not mean I am going to be lead down any old road if it does not make good,logial,rational sense that I should take that road..

[Inferfire]

Not really, he is right.

If you are open minded that means you can see the merit of different perspectives and won't reject something different.

Therefore you basically agree with an assertion.

[carpnter2000]

Being open minded does not mean you will see the merit in a different persepective. Bieng open minded means that you will look at all options with an open mind. I am willing to do that and then I will weigh the pro and con of every idea or option and then make my decision about which road to take based on the most logical, reasonable, rational information, proof, or evidence avalible....Just becuase I am open minded doesnt mean I am going to be led to believe a foolish option is the best.

[Inferfire]

When you see merit in a point that is basically an unconscious way of you saying that you agree with something.

Your saying " yeah, i can see why people would do that, it makes sense. Its not so bad."

That is called being open minded, because you have low criteria and accept almost any proposal.

When someone analyzes something with critical thinking and rejects it, that is close mindedness:

"This is a bad idea.. because of this, or that, sorry i don't agree that this is a good idea"

[Inferfire]

If you accept many things, ideas, beliefs, people, you are considered an open minded person. This also means that you have low criteria and standards. Because the more accepting you are, the less standards for you to judge things by.

If you had high criteria and high standards you would be more likely to reject proposals, ideas, people, things.

And thus you would be considered a close minded person.

Its makes sense, think about it.

[carpnter2000]

Accepting many things is different than practicing them for yourself...I can accept that there are theists out there. I can accept that there are new earth creationists. I can accept that there are satanists and people who reject th eidea of evolution......I can accept that they are out there and as a person I must respect the peoples right s to believe in them...I do not however have to accept those ideas for myself nor practice their ways. I can accept homosexuals without being one myself.

[Inferfire]

you are confusing the word acceptance with the words acknowledgment and tolerance.

You can acknowledge and tolerate different peoples beliefs, such as being homosexual but you will still be straight.

HOWEVER,

If you accept homosexual behavior, that means you are accepting to engage in that behavior and incorporate it into your lifestyle.

[carpnter2000]

I dont believe so. I can accept it but it doesnt mean I condone it. If I were to condone the actions in the bible as being moral and just and a good moral compass (as an example) then I would be a christian who condones mass genocide,rape,slavery,incest,h­uman and animal sacrafices. I can accept these ideas do exist, I can accept that people believe them to be just and moral but I do not condone the actions in the bible nor the theists actions who believe them to be that..

[carpnter2000]

I am open minded and can accept many different things but I do not condone them...I wouldnt do them myself but just because I wouldnt do them doesnt mean I cant accept them. I have inlaws and friends that are gay. I accept these people as friends and as family. Would I condone these actions and say they are OK for me and my life style?,,No,,but I can still aceept it and them.

[Inferfire]

Basically you are just repeating what i am saying. So that means you agree with me.

Your just phrasing it differently.

As for your point on arguing about semantics, i have to point out that you were the first one to try and correct me on the definition of acceptance.

And then i let you know my perspective of the definition so you could understand my message.

Unfortunately you agree with all my points and then say that i am wrong....

[carpnter2000]

have it your way but I wil word it my way. I am open minded about the world and can accept many different situations as being acceptable for others and then I am close minded as the same things I can accept about others I will not accept for myself and hold myself to my own standard that I will "accept" as my own......feel better?

[carpnter2000]

seriously here..are we having this discussion over semantics? I am what I am and u are what u are and each of us has our own core values and understandings. You can have your own words and they can define you in any way you wish. I am able to do the same so why even bother trying to correct or sway me to the use of my own words?,,lol there must be something more interesting to discuss or debate,,wouldnt u agree?

[Archeosonyxtwo]

I believe you mistake 'open mindedness' for gullibility. Open mindedness should be the middle ground you talk about. Objectivity by the way is impossible in a relative world. We are always subjective, even the smartest and most 'middle minded'. At least in this material world of communicating atoms. Reason is wonderful, but by no means the only operative human system of consciousness. Not even for you I take it, since you sound somewhat emotional about this issue. But that's okay:-)

[tossabaddle]

ceep "the teapot example" in mind. If you don't know what it is you can find a video her on youtube.

[BeHereNow21]

This is good.

[TaxPayersMoney839]

God is definitely great! While I was watching this guy trying to show off his worldly wisdom, a bible scripture came to mind; Genesis 3 2-7. It basically backs up the problem with mankind in that man is a sinner and will not follow the will of God and this guy is a prime example of how great man's "wisdom" is compared to God. Genesis tells how man received his great wisdom and discernment. You make light of God's spiritual wisdom just because you can't see and hold it but you are the fool.

[Omega3chimp]

You are man too so that apply s to you too.

[TaxPayersMoney839]

God is definitely great! While I was watching this guy trying to show off his worldly wisdom, a bible scripture came to mind; Genesis 3 2-7. It basically backs up the problem with mankind in that man is a sinner and will not follow the will of God and this guy is a prime example of how great man's "wisdom" is compared to God. Genesis tells how man received his great wisdom and discernment. You make light of God's spiritual wisdom just because you can't see and hold it but you are the fool.

[dj2baduk]

"Open-minded" is a state of receptiveness to new ideas or other opinions. That's all. It says nothing of whether you will apply skepticism in evaluating those ideas or opinions. I understand that for many people, the term is misused and it seems to be this 'common use' version of the term you're having a go at here, but it is not the dictionary definition or the one I use to describe myself and others. Good vid though. Here's another perspective:

watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI

[stove167]

I don't think there's a problem with believing the possibility that there are gremlins manufacturing buses on the other side of the moon.

[FreudsCigar]

No there isnt a problem with believing that, there might be a problem with justifying your belief though.

[Mahl0023]

you have good points but your wrong ATHIESTs are the close minded because they do not accept the fact that there might be SPIRITS or a GOD next time do not use religion to view an open minded theory because its vague but very well put

[JohananRaatz]

If one becomes overly open-minded one paradoxically becomes closed-minded again. It's the same effect as described in Alan Bloom's closing of the American Mind. If all viewpoints are treated as equal then they are all equally false, and therefore none of them are to be believed.

[PerfektBlue]

You are so amusing some how trying to compose a logic using fragmented data analysis. You present such a limited view and conflate so many concepts together a atheist can be close or open-minded maybe you go to a atheist forum and find out ? Atheism is simply the lack of a believe in god babies and retard are included if they cant form a god concept they dont believe in it and there are rationalists who are atheists because they follow logic and evidence

[gunsandbullhorns]

In education, "open-mindedness" is a code-word for "moral relativism". This has been an important (and stated) agenda of the progressivist educators for nearly a century.

The Progressivists were (and still are) a cabal of Fabian Socialists. No joke.

[KiljanArslan]

Your so right HEAR THE GENIUS OF AYN RAND!

[gunsandbullhorns]

I'm not a Randian. I read John Dewey's books. I got my information from the source.

[hens0w]

what the begging for money at lest when a chritan dose it atless there not a hypercrit

on the rest of the vido

by the most used defnitios yes

I use open and closed minded to mean how willing thay are to exsept evedense

[soakdezinagro]

you've confused open-mindedness with gullibility, i am not 100% sure of anything, facts chage as new evidence is found

[Bokaj707]

HAHAHA, your brain just falls out.

[gisi311]

No estoy muy de acuerdo, de hecho la psicología positiva dice que la mentalidad abierta es un sinónimo de juicio crítico. Se trata de analizar las fuentes de información, no solamente acepatar, de lo que se trata es de tener un escepticismo sano. Mentalidad abierta, es aceptar pero no ser ingenuo.

[ensrifraff]

Yeah Peikoff is no great mind, and his only skill is the contortionism necessary to insert foot in mouth.

Yes if someone had evidence that there were gremlins on the moon manufacturing buses, and that evidence were conclusive, it would mean there were. Seeing as that's an extraordinary claim the evidence should be equally extraordinary.

[deligthelf]

Yes I do why do you think I'm not on Objectivist.

[teton99]

St Thomas (paraphrased) said, "That our mind's greatest faculty was to contemplate the truth and that our minds should then close around truth."

[PianoIsTheRemedy]

Fair enough. I think our central disagreement is over the "foundation" of "first principles" and axioms, but I am pleased to know your position.

[Mariborchan]

Cropper, you project reason unto nature.

[JohananRaatz]

"Cropper, you project reason unto

nature."

Of course he does. And that is valid because reason is primary. Reason is based on the law of non-contradiction, and nothing could exist if non-contradiction was not true.

[popatire23]

do I sense a hint of bias? I do!

[boarderxcosta]

This could quite possibly be the most boring video ever recorded in the history of mankind.

[porkrines01]

heh I actually never thought of open-mindedness(....?)like that, I always assumed it meant you're ok with something not typically accepted.

[PerfectDecalibration]

OPEN MINDEDNESS does not deal with whether or not you think of what the person is saying. In my opinion, it only is accepting the possibility of whether or not something is true. You can be open-minded and still critically analyze it, but not deny the possbility of it being true. Close-mindedness not accpeting the possibility that something can be true, just because you don't think it is.

[KarateKidX]

hey, coming to some conclusion as an "intigrated" person is no harder than not coming to a conclusion as a "disintigrated person"

you can logically swap out agnostic and atheist, and have the agnostic person be the one who does not make any decision with out evidence.

The 'Integrated' you described sets his default to false, the 'Misintegrated' you described sets his default to true the 'Disintegrated' you described does not set a default at all.

[KarateKidX]

If you are really open minded, you accept that you are ignorant.

Being open minded it to ignorance in the same way that admitting that you have a problem is to alcoholism.

[luxfero]

irrationality and error in society causes evolution to proceed. irrationality is useful in society. if it didnt exist, we wouldnt have heros or emperors or religion. the beauty of humanity comes from its irrational side

[ST0N3R6667]

its coming from like 2 ore 3 ways, maby more.

its just your brain playing tricks from the information that you have learned in your life.

puting things in groups like good and bad.

its all bequse the brain is (programmed) that way.

its like i hate being in a group and step out,

and some walk my way too by there own, so we are the (group) walking away. i hope some wil understand what im talking about now (@_@)

[MrCropper]

The nature of good and bad are objective.

[ST0N3R6667]

for me openminded means to place yourself in a other persons thoughts and your own thoughts and

look at it from different views, i don't believe in a god and i dont know how life was created.

but we are here. we can look back and figure it out but that does not give u the point u are looking for,so... i don't like when people put people in a group, that makes you (different)we are all people. not groups of different thinkers.but we think diffrent (@_@)

its coming from difrent ways!

[flakyjon]

I can't help but be open minded because there is so much that I don't understand!

[travisissoocool]

haha,

conscious - 1. aware of one's own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings, etc.

2. fully aware of or sensitive to something

3. having the mental faculties fully active

4. known to oneself; felt

5. aware of what one is doing

6. aware of oneself

too bad our whole thought process derives from the firing of synapses in our brain!

[BeatBuddy]

A perpetually open mind is a perpetually closed mind. ---Bertrand Russell

[bebopblues]

wow this guy is closed minded

[cropperb]

"Wow this guy is closed minded."

Nay, objective.

[qtronman]

I remember Peikoff did a radio show on this very topic. Your conclusions are spot on his--as any rational person's should be. As an alternative to the "open" versus "closed" classification, he used the term: <i>active</i>-minded.

[MrCropper]

NOTICE:

In the near future, I will stop posting on "cropperb" and start posting on a new channel - MrCropper. Please visit and subscribe.

[stodles]

About projecting volition to nature: have you read Jaynes' work on the "bicameral mind"? Folks in the past may have been more hardwired to believe in spirits than we are today.

[SuperFinGuy]

Jaynes theory is pretty much proved, basically it's about that consciousness or introspection is about 3500 years old.

[0neironaut]

that is probably the worst definition of 'open-mindedness'. Hooray for straw men.

[GordonMorrice]

The question arises, "Where do my thoughts come from?" The obvious answer would be "my mind or brain". But what does that tell us? Nothing. It explains absolutely nothing. How could it be that novel ideas or images can instantaneously arise to my consciousness?

[GordonMorrice]

I feel that philosophy is not the prime mover in the world. It is our desires that our primary and are unassuageable. The beliefs, creeds and ethics of people are often thrown out the window without us being aware of it until after we have acted instinctively.

[GordonMorrice]

And I don't understand the depreciation of Ludwig Wittgenstein. I think that he was right in saying that there are no philosophical problems, just misunderstandings of language; that it is when we try to go beyond the limits of language that we tie ourselves in a knot.

[TheSneakySkeptic]

Mr. Cropper, consider this quote from Carl Sagan's "The Burden of Skepticism". Sagan wrote, "It seems to me what is called for is an exquisite balance between two conflicting needs: the most skeptical scrutiny of all hypotheses that are served up to us and at the same time a great openness to new ideas." Isn't Sagan saying we need to be both skeptical and openminded? Where does this fit into your DIM model?

[cropperb]

"Isn't Sagan saying we need to be both skeptical and openminded? Where does this fit into your DIM model?"

Someone who is skeptical by demanding data and ignoring the arbitrary, and who simultaneously is open to new ideas if the data or evidence warrants the new idea, is an objective, rational person. Sagan just didn't understand the issues on as deep a level as that.

[mikecampochiaro]

Do objectivists believe in "Absolute Truth" or "Absolutes" in general?

[cropperb]

Everything that is true is an absolute. The food in your stomach, the bullet coming toward you, the sun rising each day - all absolute, invioable truths. Ignore absolutes (reality) at your own peril.

[gabrielevery]

i always like to circumvent that 'no absolute truth" paradox, by suggesting that there are also 'relative truths' in this world -and how do we deal/what the implications of that. Also, lets consider the possibility of change..What if in 10 million years, the universe 'tweaks' out and all former properties & psychics drastically change...

[gabrielevery]

(cont)..if that happened, something must not be absolute in the equation. It probably says more about the illogical nature of language. We use the word 'right' as a direction, one of our hands, and

(i am speaking before watching)

[gabrielevery]

...i fucked that up... We use the same word to refer to a direction, a hand, and a set of values that we think each human is entitled to. obviously there is room for confusion

[AngryAnthropologist]

I see your point. I've seen this referred to as the logical fallacy of equivocation.

[nine9s]

The fallacy of equivocation has nothing to do with it. We're not confusing words with multiple definitions.

My point is that you're saying we can never be sure about anything. I'm saying your statement is self-contradictory. If you'll go more than an inch below the surface, you'll see that all your equivocating statements are *themselves* statements purporting to describe the world as it really is. You can't escape from absolutes except by shutting your mouth and going unconscious.

[nine9s]

Ok, to be precise, you can't escape from *stating* absolutes except by shutting your mouth...

[AngryAnthropologist]

Yes. We can all agree that A=A and 1=1. And these are necessary to form testable hypotheses...

[AngryAnthropologist]

I'm sorry for the confusion. My comment about equivocation was a reply to gabrielevery, not to nine9s. Regarding nine9s point...I never said that I disagree with tautologies (A=A); these are definitionally true (like numbers). Science doesn't test tautologies, it tests hypotheses. Hypotheses involve tautologies (like numbers), but that doesn't mean that hypotheses are tautologies. But you dont have to believe me...

[AngryAnthropologist]

I agree. In science, a door always has to be left open for new, more reasonable, ideas. If scientists believed that there was absolutely no chance of our understanding of the universe to change, then science would be faith-based. Thankfully, it isn't.

[gabrielevery]

ok, but what if a meteor hit the earth, and there was no more earth for the sun to come up on? in that case, your 'absolute' is/was only temporal. show me a absolute that isn't temporal.

[cropperb]

"show me a absolute that isn't temporal."

Every absolute is temporal, i.e. exists in time. That's silly.

[gabrielevery]

by your definition then, absolutes are limited & restricted by time, therefore, they aren't absolutes in the first place... certianly you'd agree that a meteor could destroy the earth, therefore the sun wouldn't come up- so its not an absolute... but i'd say something like mathematical forumlas are absolute.. whether there are humans in the universe or not, the properties of a rectilinear triangle would remain absolute

[AngryAnthropologist]

Is there any conceivable evidence that would change your mind about the (non)existence of God, or the validity of General Relativity Theory, or Natural Selection? If you can't think of any evidence that would change your mind about any of these, then YOU are incapable of forming a scientific hypothesis. Everything in science is tentative. Science is fundementally agnostic. It is curiosity about the unknown (not claims to know everything) that propells science. Go back to school.

[cropperb]

"Everything in science is tentative."

But I'm sure your statement is NOT tentative, right? Your statement about science is an absolute, right?

[AngryAnthropologist]

You are confused. Hypotheses can never be tested in isolation (as you must know) thus the absolute proof of any hypothesis is impossible. Rather, hypotheses are considered (and tested) in bundles. No hypothesis can ever be absolutly ruled out, or in; they can only be evaluated relative to eachother. My statement about science is not an absolute; but given the evidence, i think its the most reasonable way to proceed.

[nine9s]

"No hypothesis can ever be absolutly ruled out,"

Except apparently the hypothesis that "Some hypotheses can be absolutely ruled out." Don't you see how you contradict yourself?

[AngryAnthropologist]

Nine9s, I am not contradicting myself. How would you test the hypothesis "some hypotheses can be absolutely ruled out"? This is not a testable hypothesis, so it is not worthy of contemplation. Please refresh yourself about what hypotheses are and what they are not. Then you may rejoin the conversation.

[nine9s]

How I'd test that hypothesis is irrelevant. What's relevant is that you make truth claims while denying that anything you're saying is absolute. But the truth IS absolute. If what you're talking about isn't absolute, it isn't true.

[AngryAnthropologist]

The testability of your hypothesis is relevant because if it isn't testable it isn't a hypothesis. I have made no absolute truth claims. Reason supports whichever hypothesis (when compared with others) more adequately accounts for the available empirical data. New, more adequate, theories may come along in the future, (no hypothesis can be tested in isolation anyway) therefore science does not produce absolute truths. If a scientist tells you she has absolute proof, she is a fraud.

[nine9s]

Every time you speak you make an absolute truth claim.

"If a scientist tells you she has absolute proof, she is a fraud." Really? Absolutely? Or only some of the time, maybe, probably? If I took what you say seriously, I couldn't take anything you said seriously.

[AngryAnthropologist]

Okay, now you're nitpicking. Let me rephrase if that helps. "If a scientist tells you she has absolute proof,she is probably a fraud." Are you happy now? The point is that someone is likely trying to mislead you if they tell you they have found absolute proof of a hypothesis. You can believe them if you want though...

[nine9s]

"Someone is most likely trying to mislead you..."

Really? You mean it's absolutely certain that they are "most likely trying to mislead you...", or is it still possible that it's "not likely" that they're trying to mislead you? I mean, who really knows, right? How can I know for sure what's likely and what's not?

Are you getting my point?

[AngryAnthropologist]

Maybe I'm not getting your point, or your not getting mine. I can't make any absolute judgements about the motivation of a scientist who claims to have absolute proof of a hypothesis; but I would be wary. I'm skeptical of every hypothesis (tautologies like A=A are definitionally true; they aren't hypotheses) but given the available empirical evidence I may have more confidence in some hypotheses than in others. So...what's you're point?

[nine9s]

Oh, incidentally, here's how I'd test "Some hypotheses can be absolutely ruled out."

1. State a hypothesis

2. "There is a hundred-dollar bill in my wallet"

3. Check wallet's contents.

4. No hundred-dollar bill.

5. Hypothesis is absolutely ruled out.

[AngryAnthropologist]

Of course, if throughout the course of your life, a $100 bill appears in your wallet at least one time, then evidence would sometimes support that hypothesis. But, to be honest, "there is a hundred-dollar bill in my wallet" isn't exactly a hypothesis either. Lets just say that if you were in school, and the teacher assigned for you to come up with a scientific hypothesis, you would fail!

[nine9s]

No, AA, the word "is" means "right now." You change the question, and when the answer changes, you say, "See, nothing's absolute." If you'd just answer the question AS IT IS, you'll see that it has an absolute answer.

[AngryAnthropologist]

"There is a hundred-dollar bill in my wallet". Is "is" a present tense verb? YES! 10 years from now, can we propose that "there is a hundred-dollar bill in my wallet" without changing the question? YES! But this is besides the point. I like empirical data; if a saw no $100 in your wallet, I wouldn't have much confidence in your "hypothesis". But I should be able to repeat the experiment at a later date...

[nine9s]

Jesus christ. In ten years that question will refer to a different situation. This time you're changing the *context* and acting shocked, shocked that the answer may change. Can you at least admit that the statement "There is a hundred-dollar bill in my wallet, right now, at 2:29pm EDT" can be absolutely refuted?

[AngryAnthropologist]

Well, I guess I can just believe you. If I saw your wallet, for all practical (but not theoretical) purposes, I'd say that I agree with you. But, I'm curious, can you figure out why your hypothesis "there is a $100 bill in may wallet...at 2:29pm" isn't particularly scientific?

[nine9s]

If I said, "There will be a total eclipse of the sun on January 15, 2032," would that be a scientific hypothesis? If so, how would it be any different from my wallet example?

[AngryAnthropologist]

How did you arrive at each hypothesis?

[nine9s]

You're still saying that even if you inspect the inside of my wallet, you have no theoretical grounds for saying that there is not a hundred-dollar bill inside. That is whack. If you don't trust the empty wallet that is right in front of your eyes, how will you trust the logic that I present right in front of your eyes?

I think I'm done with this conversation.

[AngryAnthropologist]

nine9s, I never said I'm against empirical observations. Maybe we can settle on this. If you say "there is no $100 bill in my wallet", and if I look inside and don't observe one, then my observation did not support your "hypothesis", thus I would have little reason to have confidence in your "hypothesis". I still won't 100% rule out the possibility of your having the bill because you might have a hidden compartment that I overlooked.... It was fun conversing!

[cropperb]

", thus I would have little reason to have confidence in your "hypothesis". I still won't 100% rule out the possibility of your having the bill because you might have a hidden compartment that I overlooked...."

You can't bring up arbitrary crap like that! Scientists who took such things as "possible secret compartments" seriously would never accomplish a thing. Like most scientists today.

[AngryAnthropologist]

CropperB. Scientists are aware of the limitations of their observations (if they're not, their peers will likely point out the limitations). If I had reason to suspect that there are secret compartments, then maybe I'd want to alter the experiment. If I had no reason, or no interest, I'd move on. Seems like you don't like scientists these days. What do you think of Carl Sagan?

[cropperb]

Sagan was a pretty good guy. I've read about 6 of his books. But he was a bit washy on politics and backward on ethics.

[cropperb]

"thus the absolute proof of any hypothesis is impossible."

Can you absolutely prove that?

[AngryAnthropologist]

CropperB, is the statement "the absolute proof of any hypothesis is impossible" a hypothesis? No. So your question is irrelevant. I know objectivists like to make a big stink over A=A, but this is a tautology, not a hypothesis. I do think that A=A is definitionally true. Do you know the difference between a hypothesis and a tautology? Also, I'm curious, what are your thoughts on Carl Sagan (good scientist or communist?)

[cropperb]

"... big stink over A=A ..."

It is actually "A is A' not = and it is an essential distinction. It is Aristotle's law of identity. A thing IS itself. It is not EQUAL to itself; it IS itself.

[AngryAnthropologist]

Ok, I stand corrected A is A (not A=A). But this is still a tautology and not a hypothesis. I don't disagree that A is A (if you say it is). A is A is not a hypothesis. There is a difference between tautology and hypothesis. Do you know what the difference is?

[cropperb]

Who said it was a hypothosis? It is an axiom (undeniable truth).

[AngryAnthropologist]

Only tautologies (A is A) are absolutly true because they are definitionally true. Hypotheses are not tautologies. Do you know what the difference is? If you do, then you will be able understand my point. If not, I'm sure there are some wonderful community colleges in St. George (paid for in part by wages stolen by the gov't from the hardworking masses) that can explain the scientific method to you.

[gabrielevery]

brandon, can you show me how the axiom A=A is at relevant,pratical, or applicable to lived life? (give me an example other than relevance in academic discussions)

[cropperb]

A is A, not A = A. Because it means a thing is itself. A thing is not EQUAL to itself - a thing IS itself.

It is relevant every day you wake up. "A is A" is recognition of reality - aknowledging facts as they are instead of sticking one's head in the sand. Surely you face such options each day?

[gabrielevery]

yes I do--but I would also argue that 90% of modern civilazation, acknowledges facts & deals with opinions--without ever needing to be taught the truism "a=a", or anything else about philosophy for that matter.... you act as if there are billions of Kants running around.

[gabrielevery]

(cont) to quote Wittgenstien- "What is the use of studying philosophy if all that it does for you is enable you to talk with some plausibility about some abstruse quesions of logic, etc, and if it does not improve your thinking about the important questions in everyday life"

[gabrielevery]

cont... Now I really love philosophy, but when I'm out in the real world...shopping for food, cleaning the house, showering, the only thing philosophy gives me is amusing riddles to think about all day long. You claim philosophy moves the world, yet, there a lot of other things that move the world that have nothing to do with academic philosophy.

[gabrielevery]

... Yes, over time we've building roads and skyscrapers and what not, and those are things in themselves... its not like questioning the nature of reality led someone to invent bridges

[gabrielevery]

(sorry about the 4 posts) It always seems like a reactionary philosophy, similar to the reactionary values of slave morality...by that i mean, a lot of Rand's ideas are solely derived from 'what did not work in the past/present'... she says 'how it should be', at the same time, none of it could ever be applied on a grand scale to see if she is correct.

what if one day, you woke up and the entire world operated under Objectivist philosophy.... what would you do then?

[cropperb]

"none of it could ever be applied on a grand scale to see if she is correct."

That is incredible. Most of what she advocated has already seen its golden ages in Ancient Athens and 19th century America.

"what if one day, you woke up and the entire world operated under Objectivist philosophy.... what would you do then?"

CELEBRATE! Then pinch myself...

[gabrielevery]

alrigh alright... one last thing... Let's say that you never get students for your school... Who's fault would that have been?... yours or the 'ignorant populous"

[cropperb]

Mine.

[cropperb]

"Now I really love philosophy, but when I'm out in the real world"

The only thing you've studied (obviously) is academic philosophy.

Contrary to your experience, philosophy is the most urgent and vital need of humans. You use it all the time, even when doing those "every day" things.

[cropperb]

"to quote Wittgenstien"

I didn't even read the quote. Anyone who brings that guy up is in sad shape (to put it politely).

[cropperb]

"I would also argue that 90% of modern civilazation, acknowledges facts & deals with opinions"

Just from the way people around you live their lives you should know they aren't basicly honest with themselves. How many people do you know who hate their job, wife, kids, family, but keep plugging along without changing anything? 95% of people are like that. They are refusing to admit that A is A.

[hollywodhack]

Nice, Not sure I totally agree with the agnostic idea, but I understand where you where going with this. Open minded people do think about things. I am open minded because I believe things that most don't. I am free of "controlling" ideas may make me open minded for example. Actually by being open minded I am also close minded to such things as Racism.

[nine9s]

Defining open-mindedness as "acceptance of arbitrary assertions" implies that open-mindedness is synonymous with gullibility--they're related, but not the same thing. Open-minded people don't just believe everything they're told; rather, they believe that anything and everything *could* potentially be true. For a definition, how about "taking arbitrary claims seriously"? Or "believing that I have a chance of being correct"?

[cropperb]

I guess "acceptance of arbitrary assertions" is a bit strong. By acceptance, I don't mean they believe them, just that they don't reject them out of hand. So "taking arbitrary claims seriously" captures the meaning fairly well also.

[civisromae]

For somebody who claims to be on the side of logic, your argument hasat least one fundumental fallacy. If I ever get a video camera, I'll be sure to make leave a video response to explain this flaw in detail.

[cropperb]

But you won't even give me a hint for now?

[justme3073]

I forgot who said this, "Open minded sometimes means empty headed" but it sounds a lot better than "Open minded means your brains going to fall out". :-D Anyway I thought the gas story was interesting. This theist surely didn't see the gas go up and think "Hey that must have happened because of that guy called God, guess I'll have to believe in him now." No he/she was a theist before right? "A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."

[justme3073]

In other words a person would find any little reason to prove his or her own beliefs and squash any reason that says other way. At first I thought that a theist would be considered open-minded too but when I thought about what I was talking about before they are closed-minded. I heard theists feeding off of anything that science can fully explain YET as proof of God, but demanding so little proof for the idea of their God. So nice video. ^_^

[mikecampochiaro]

Agnostic directly translated into Latin means "ignoramus"

[mikecampochiaro]

Concerning empiricism, the idea that ALL things must be empirically verified in order to be believed is itself an idea that cannot be empirically verified and therefore cannot be believed.

[WarVideo]

HEy! you just adm,ited that you're a D.

[mikecampochiaro]

And you just admitted that you're a dimwitted objectivist, what is your point?

[cropperb]

"dimwitted objectivist" is a contradiction in terms, Mike.

[D4rkReaver13]

Hehe, well said.

[freethinkersociety]

mikecampochiaro:

Has your notion that dimwitted can by realistically and honestly applied to objectivist?

This presumes the objectivist does meet what defines Rand's objectivism, quite obviously.

I find immense value in many of her thoughts and the philosophy as a whole.

And, while I sway just a bit too far from the Ob's view capitalism -

She, and what came from her mind surely taps the same neurons that give us the pleasure from sex.

[nine9s]

Who said "All things must be empirically verified in order to be believed"? First of all, people can and do believe things without verification all the time. Second, do "all things" include concepts, thoughts and principles? Third, what in your mind counts as empirical evidence? Do you count logical deduction from data as empirical?

Strawman city.