Cult of Open-mindedness:

Known unknowns and unknown unknowns!

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Advocate
Posts: 3467
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Cult of Open-mindedness:

Post by Advocate »

Believing that someone's opinion is more valuable if they've been converted to the right side of an argument because they have proven they are willing to accept change when they're wrong denegrates those who were never wrong in the first place. That the latter have not proven their ability to change when they're wrong says nothing about that ability's existence and the fact that they're actually right makes it irrelevant. If a non-convert is already right, by what standard do we doubt their epistemology? If a convert is now right, by what standard do we judge theirs? Would they not shift again and be wrong again? Why would someone who is already right ever change their epistemology to something less valid?
Last edited by Advocate on Wed Apr 20, 2022 9:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
MagsJ
Posts: 318
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2013 6:23 pm
Location: Suryaloka / LDN Town

Re: Cult of Open-mindedness:

Post by MagsJ »

_
What is right for one, may not be right for another..

It’s more about truthfulness, than being right.
commonsense
Posts: 5087
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: Cult of Open-mindedness:

Post by commonsense »

Or truthiness.
trokanmariel
Posts: 708
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2018 3:35 am

Re: Cult of Open-mindedness:

Post by trokanmariel »

Advocate wrote: Fri Apr 15, 2022 6:38 am Believing that someone's opinion is more valuable if they've been converted to the right side of an argument because they have proven they are willing to accept change when they're wrong denegrates those who were never wrong in the first place. That the latter have not proven their ability to change when they're wrong says nothing about that ability's existence and the fact that they're actually right makes it irrelevant. If a non-covert is already right, by what standard do we doubt their epistemology? If a convert is now right, by what standard do we judge theirs? Would they not shift again and be wrong again? Why would someone who is already right ever change their epistemology to something less valid?

There is "the value of saying something, despite the citation already being known" logistics, which is a cousin or relation to the issue you invoke.

The permanence science, of photography-movie-technology in general isn't related to this cause, which is indeed a cause.

It creates a condition, of trying to latch onto, when it occurs, and this is related to The Symmetry's ideology, of acting from the smallest rebellion.

Of these three statements, the last is the one that's the key going forward:

The Symmetry = it's humanity's prize, for the Sainsbury's reality.
popeye1945
Posts: 2119
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: Cult of Open-mindedness:

Post by popeye1945 »

Biological consciousness is the bases of judgement differing individuals who have somewhat different biologies will have somewhat different perceptions and/or judgments. The common thread of reason is what saves us from chaos and the collective judgement is rather a save guard, but not infallible. Postmodernism is nonsense stating that all judgments have equal validity. The cult of open mindedness is also nonsense, people are able to use reason at different levels of quality. The unintelligent will of course find much difficulty even intelligence is no guarantee of wisdom, but a mixture of intelligence and critical thinking is about as good as one could wish for. To the individual truth is his biological experience, to the group it is agreement. Truth is always true to its biology even where it disagrees with physical reality. Widely different biologies will have widely differing experiences and thus judgements.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Cult of Open-mindedness:

Post by Iwannaplato »

Advocate wrote: Fri Apr 15, 2022 6:38 am Believing that someone's opinion is more valuable if they've been converted to the right side of an argument because they have proven they are willing to accept change when they're wrong denegrates those who were never wrong in the first place. That the latter have not proven their ability to change when they're wrong says nothing about that ability's existence and the fact that they're actually right makes it irrelevant. If a non-covert is already right, by what standard do we doubt their epistemology? If a convert is now right, by what standard do we judge theirs? Would they not shift again and be wrong again? Why would someone who is already right ever change their epistemology to something less valid?
Yes, having changed one's mind does not demonstrate one is more rational (or less rational) than people who have not changed their mind. But there are people who have a cognitive defense posture that makes them impervious to changing their mind even in the face of excellent arguments and a great deal of evidence. This can be observed through things like repeatedly not responding to certain points in someone else's critique or through repeated use of fallacies and not acknowledging when this is pointed out, for using distraction or ad homs when cornered. But demonstrating this to them or to other people on 'their team' is incredibly hard. And since most people engage in some of this behavior at least on occasion, fingerpointing is available all around.

I'd be pretty skeptical about someone having an open mind (read: willing to actually engage with the positions of others) if they've reached middle age and haven't changed their mind about anything significant.

That would mean they were right about everything in their late teens say. But it is possible, I suppose. But I would be statistically extremely rare.
Advocate
Posts: 3467
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: Cult of Open-mindedness:

Post by Advocate »

[quote=Iwannaplato post_id=568825 time=1650444165 user_id=3619]
[quote=Advocate post_id=568124 time=1650001133 user_id=15238]
Believing that someone's opinion is more valuable if they've been converted to the right side of an argument because they have proven they are willing to accept change when they're wrong denegrates those who were never wrong in the first place. That the latter have not proven their ability to change when they're wrong says nothing about that ability's existence and the fact that they're actually right makes it irrelevant. If a non-covert is already right, by what standard do we doubt their epistemology? If a convert is now right, by what standard do we judge theirs? Would they not shift again and be wrong again? Why would someone who is already right ever change their epistemology to something less valid?
[/quote]Yes, having changed one's mind does not demonstrate one is more rational (or less rational) than people who have not changed their mind. But there are people who have a cognitive defense posture that makes them impervious to changing their mind even in the face of excellent arguments and a great deal of evidence. This can be observed through things like repeatedly not responding to certain points in someone else's critique or through repeated use of fallacies and not acknowledging when this is pointed out, for using distraction or ad homs when cornered. But demonstrating this to them or to other people on 'their team' is incredibly hard. And since most people engage in some of this behavior at least on occasion, fingerpointing is available all around.

I'd be pretty skeptical about someone having an open mind (read: willing to actually engage with the positions of others) if they've reached middle age and haven't changed their mind about anything significant.

That would mean they were right about everything in their late teens say. But it is possible, I suppose. But I would be statistically extremely rare.
[/quote]

You can often tell more about someone by what they respond to (or avoid responding to) than what they say.

Learning is the process of closing your mind by discovering necessary, or necessarily accepted truths and thereby having a foundation for greater understanding.

You need not have changed your mind at any point if you never accepted a fact until it was reasonably certain in the first place Skepticism is a perfect place to start an intellectual journey, and a terrible one to end up.
Last edited by Advocate on Thu Apr 21, 2022 5:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
commonsense
Posts: 5087
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: Cult of Open-mindedness:

Post by commonsense »

Advocate wrote: Wed Apr 20, 2022 9:53 pm
Iwannaplato wrote: Wed Apr 20, 2022 9:42 am
Advocate wrote: Fri Apr 15, 2022 6:38 am Believing that someone's opinion is more valuable if they've been converted to the right side of an argument because they have proven they are willing to accept change when they're wrong denegrates those who were never wrong in the first place. That the latter have not proven their ability to change when they're wrong says nothing about that ability's existence and the fact that they're actually right makes it irrelevant. If a non-covert is already right, by what standard do we doubt their epistemology? If a convert is now right, by what standard do we judge theirs? Would they not shift again and be wrong again? Why would someone who is already right ever change their epistemology to something less valid?
Yes, having changed one's mind does not demonstrate one is more rational (or less rational) than people who have not changed their mind. But there are people who have a cognitive defense posture that makes them impervious to changing their mind even in the face of excellent arguments and a great deal of evidence. This can be observed through things like repeatedly not responding to certain points in someone else's critique or through repeated use of fallacies and not acknowledging when this is pointed out, for using distraction or ad homs when cornered. But demonstrating this to them or to other people on 'their team' is incredibly hard. And since most people engage in some of this behavior at least on occasion, fingerpointing is available all around.

I'd be pretty skeptical about someone having an open mind (read: willing to actually engage with the positions of others) if they've reached middle age and haven't changed their mind about anything significant.

That would mean they were right about everything in their late teens say. But it is possible, I suppose. But I would be statistically extremely rare.
You can often tell more about someone by what they respond to (or avoid responding to) than what they say.

Learning is the process of closing your mind by discovering necessary, or necessarily accepted truths and thereby having a donation for greater understanding.

You need not have changed your mind at any point if you never accepted a fact until it was reasonably certain in the first place Skepticism is a perfect place to start an intellectual journey, and a terrible one to end up.
Once you’ve closed your mind you’ve stopped learning. You never stop learning as long as you continue to grow.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Cult of Open-mindedness:

Post by Iwannaplato »

Advocate wrote: Wed Apr 20, 2022 9:53 pm You can often tell more about someone by what they respond to (or avoid responding to) than what they say.
Sure.
Learning is the process of closing your mind by discovering necessary, or necessarily accepted truths and thereby having a donation for greater understanding.
I'm not sure what that means.
You need not have changed your mind at any point if you never accepted a fact until it was reasonably certain in the first place Skepticism is a perfect place to start an intellectual journey, and a terrible one to end up.
Well....Since we generally don't start questioning things until we have already taken on a vast amount of beliefs - as infants through teen years, I don't think we can really stand pre-belief with a healthy skepticism. And that skepticism will likely be founded on finding out things are not true - or seem to be not true, given that skepticism can also be fallible. We get filled, at some point we start questioning, we may or may not get better at this, experiences that crash against certain beliefs arise and may get noticed and so on.
User avatar
MagsJ
Posts: 318
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2013 6:23 pm
Location: Suryaloka / LDN Town

Re: Cult of Open-mindedness:

Post by MagsJ »

commonsense wrote: Sat Apr 16, 2022 3:39 pm Or truthiness.
Or truisms. lol
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Cult of Open-mindedness:

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Advocate wrote: Fri Apr 15, 2022 6:38 am Believing that someone's opinion is more valuable if they've been converted to the right side of an argument because they have proven they are willing to accept change when they're wrong denegrates those who were never wrong in the first place. That the latter have not proven their ability to change when they're wrong says nothing about that ability's existence and the fact that they're actually right makes it irrelevant. If a non-convert is already right, by what standard do we doubt their epistemology? If a convert is now right, by what standard do we judge theirs? Would they not shift again and be wrong again? Why would someone who is already right ever change their epistemology to something less valid?
I had claimed ALL facts, truths and knowledge are conditioned upon a specific Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK].

At the present the most credible FSK is the scientific FSK thus scientific facts. Note within the FSKs there are varying degrees of credibility depending on various factors, i.e. the more soundly tested and repeated 000s-of-times scientific facts are more credible than the current ones, the theoretical or the speculative.

As such there are accepted criteria on how scientific facts are credible or truth-worthy.
viewtopic.php?p=489338#p489338

Based on the above, scientific facts and the scientific FSK should be the standard bearer all other claims of facts and truth should be compared against.
In this case we will give credible ratings to various types of scientific facts depending on their methodology and circumstances.
Say I can rate the fact, Water is H2O at 90/100 credibility, then I should rate the theoretical untested unrepeatable BB at say 49/100.

Whatever others claimed as truth and facts from other FSKs should be contrasted the scientific FSK as the standard and rated accordingly.
Thus the legal truth that 'X is a convicted murder' based heavily on DNA evidence should be rated highly say at 75/00 which is more credible than of the scientific claims of the BB or Black Holes.

The claim God exists as real and fact by theists based a theistic FSK would be rated 0.000001/100 i.e. is an impossibility and a non-starter in contrast to the scientific FSK as the standard.

So any one who claim their truths, facts or knowledge is right or real has contrast against the scientific FSK as the standard and rated accordingly.
Advocate
Posts: 3467
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: Cult of Open-mindedness:

Post by Advocate »

[quote=Iwannaplato post_id=568966 time=1650554915 user_id=3619]
[quote=Advocate post_id=568880 time=1650488038 user_id=15238]

[quote]Learning is the process of closing your mind by discovering necessary, or necessarily accepted truths and thereby having a donation for greater understanding. [/quote]

>I'm not sure what that means.

foundation - fixed
Advocate
Posts: 3467
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: Cult of Open-mindedness:

Post by Advocate »

[quote=Iwannaplato post_id=568966 time=1650554915 user_id=3619]
[quote=Advocate post_id=568880 time=1650488038 user_id=15238]
You can often tell more about someone by what they respond to (or avoid responding to) than what they say. [/quote]Sure.

[quote]Learning is the process of closing your mind by discovering necessary, or necessarily accepted truths and thereby having a donation for greater understanding. [/quote]I'm not sure what that means.

[quote]You need not have changed your mind at any point if you never accepted a fact until it was reasonably certain in the first place Skepticism is a perfect place to start an intellectual journey, and a terrible one to end up.
[/quote]
Well....Since we generally don't start questioning things until we have already taken on a vast amount of beliefs - as infants through teen years, I don't think we can really stand pre-belief with a healthy skepticism. And that skepticism will likely be founded on finding out things are not true - or seem to be not true, given that skepticism can also be fallible. We get filled, at some point we start questioning, we may or may not get better at this, experiences that crash against certain beliefs arise and may get noticed and so on.
[/quote]

This is where Bayesian reasoning steps in and solves everything. It didn't matter where you start, as long as you iterate properly you'll always approach Truth.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Cult of Open-mindedness:

Post by Iwannaplato »

Advocate wrote: Mon May 30, 2022 5:01 pm This is where Bayesian reasoning steps in and solves everything. It didn't matter where you start, as long as you iterate properly you'll always approach Truth.
Could you apply Bayesian reasoning to a political of metaphysical issue and show how it helps you approach the truth? Or on any issue you think is important, preferably something that comes up in a philosophical forum.
Last edited by Iwannaplato on Tue May 31, 2022 12:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Cult of Open-mindedness:

Post by Iwannaplato »

Advocate wrote: Mon May 30, 2022 3:53 pm >I'm not sure what that means.

foundation - fixed
That sentence can't mean 'foundation - fixed'.
Learning is the process of closing your mind by discovering necessary, or necessarily accepted truths and thereby having a donation for greater understanding.
Post Reply