Pinksy - Latest Comments in Open-Mindedness

Re: Open-Mindedness

LisaOlson — Sat, 08 May 2010 03:44:29 -0000

Many people might be misinterpreted of of not being open-minded because people themselves don't understand that each person is entitled of their opinion. People need to learn that they can't force others to change what they believe in.
-
Contributor: Pregnancy Miracle

Re: Open-Mindedness

Annuity — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 01:36:36 -0000

An insightfull post. Will definitely help.

Thanks,
Steve

Re: Open-Mindedness

robinsons — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 15:19:03 -0000

This is a great vid which unfortunately applies to too many people on both sides of the science / religion debate.

Re: Open-Mindedness

pinksy — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 13:40:37 -0000

..... eh?

Re: Open-Mindedness

pinksy — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 13:39:37 -0000

Hey Steve... I just wondered a couple of things:

1. How would the argument be turned around? Do you mean "turn around" such that a counter-argument is given? If so, I'm unsure how a counter-argument would constitute a discussion of Dawkins.

2. How is the video myopic? The opening moments of the video, in my view, argue that open-mindedness is the antithesis of myopia:

"Science promotes and thrives on open-mindedness, because the advancement of our understanding about the reality in which we exist depends on our willingness to consider new ideas. Indeed scientific discovery often requires entirely new ways of thinking."

Re: Open-Mindedness

emmacc — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 10:23:30 -0000

Actually an ellipsis has three dots, so I think you'll find you mean
... eh?
Now I'm just being argumentative for the sake of it.

Re: Open-Mindedness

emmacc — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 04:20:31 -0000

One way? As in it only makes sense and not nonsense? It is not the destruction of a ‘paper tiger’ but the destruction of many ridiculous real life arguments that sceptics hear from credulous fools who claim to be open minded because they believe any nonsense which they are fed, without thinking critically about the truth of those claims.
As for your attack on Dawkins, could you explain to me how this refers to anything that Dawkins says? He only asks for real evidence for a god, he has never (close mindedly) claimed there is definitively no god, only that there is no evidence for a god. His stance, if I may be so bold as to claim to understand it, is that the burden of proof of a supernatural being is with the person or people making the claim of a supernatural being. The only way Dawkins could be claimed to be closed minded is if you showed him evidence that god exists – actual scientific evidence, not testimony or anecdote, and he refused to accept it. Otherwise he is a scientist and a sceptic – a man able to weigh up evidence and come to conclusions. I would call that an intelligent man, myself, but perhaps we have different standards.

Re: Open-Mindedness

pinksy — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 18:44:57 -0000

..... eh?

Re: Open-Mindedness

andrefrancis — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 18:01:43 -0000

..... eh?

Re: Open-Mindedness

pinksy — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 17:39:21 -0000

the vid or the comments?

Re: Open-Mindedness

andrefrancis — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 17:33:15 -0000

..... eh?

Re: Open-Mindedness

Steve B — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 04:58:55 -0000

Good vid as to the principal, but one-way and consequently the destruction of a paper tiger. Turn this round and you're talking about Dawkins. If it had been less myopic I'd have used this.