Comments on: An Open Mind

By: AredhelCarnesir

AredhelCarnesir — Mon, 14 Jun 2010 07:10:06 +0000

I must agree with Brett on this. I see this all the time at school, arguments when people refuse to listen to others and miss out on learning something about an issue. A while back my class was having a (heated) debate about asylum seekers and the actions of Germans in WW2 in English. One of my friends (Who is German) got up right in the middle of it and said, ‘You know what, you can’t blaim me for hurting your great grandfather, so why are we having this argument?’ I really admire her for getting up and saying that. Like global warming, there are at least two sides to every issue, even though one side may have more supporters than the other side. And if you start hurting people just because they don’t agree with your side of the argument, you stray into discrimination.

By: Satya Agraha

Satya Agraha — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 01:33:59 +0000

Science Avenger! Have you forgotten why there are two sides to every arguement? It’s because everyone on earth is a complete moron! That’s right, I said it. Anyone who thinks he or she knows, doesn’t, because the human brain cannot possibly comprehend truth. In order to do that, we have to know every single detail about every single thing in the entire universe. Tell me, everyone reading this, do you know everything about everything about everything about evertything? No? I didn’t think so. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that someone is oing to know something you don’t. It is also reasonable to assume that there is information that is key to proving or dispoving (as if that were actually possible) your arguement that no one knows…yet. And this is the conclsion on the matter: There is no truth, only belief. Everything you know or claim to know and defend as truth is simply an act of faith. Get this: a thousand years agao, people believed that mice grew out of wheat and that flys spawned from rotting meat. And there was relevent, scientific data to support that claim! It was wasn’t the 1600′s that Louis Pastuer disproved that scientific fact. How funny is that? Well, I think it’s hilarious anyways. In sum, there is no truth, only faith. We spend our entire lives in the dark believing that current science is real….but never really KNOWING.

By: thegreatone

thegreatone — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 19:35:39 +0000

another interpretation to the statement “there are two sides to every issue”-if someone has an idea, then that idea is at any given time both infinitely “right” and infinitely “wrong” because no one knows all the truth.so the best thing i can suggest is to take everything constructive from the “right” side and to cope to the best of one’s abilities with the deconstructiveness of the “wrong” side.feel free to contradict me, I’d like to see if i have made any mistakes or smth like that.also sorry if my style of writing is hard to read.P.S. thx a lot for posting a sublime video

By: WVI

WVI — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 10:30:48 +0000

I agree; more people should bend themselves to my particular brand of openmindedness. After all, I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight you to the death over you saying it.

By: Meandering

Meandering — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 16:23:10 +0000

I’m open minded, its like a big wind tunnel in there!

By: steph

steph — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 14:35:52 +0000

i do think i need to have a little bit more of an open mind, but maybe thats why im watching these videos and reading peoples comments =o to see the other side of some arguments

By: Phil

Phil — Fri, 23 May 2008 03:38:30 +0000

Even after rereading your original post twice, I /also/ missed your supposed point about “more than two sides”. In fact, I don’t think it appeared in comment 7 at all, but only in comment 15.
Anothersqueezedradish may have ranted off a bunch of questions, but they weren’t ignorant. They deserve a better answer than what you gave, which was just to accuse him of settling for “magic men,” and saying “there will always be unanswered questions” (which is only an assumption anyway.) Instead of seeing ASR as demanding that something supernatural MUST have happened, just consider him as saying that you should consider that something supernatural MAY have happened.

By: Science Avenger

Science Avenger — Wed, 21 May 2008 20:52:54 +0000

I can see John Bay missed my point entirely, which is that there are often many more than two sides to every issue, and thus the black/white view of the world which demands equal time for one of the many many garbage theories out there is childish and simplistic. Perhaps he should think a bit more about his posts before he goes off on another presumptive ignorant rant.

As for Anothersqueezedradish, asking a lot of ignorant questions doesn’t prove anything. There are always unanswered questions. That doesn’t mean it is intellectually sound to make up magic men that did it.

On the scientific side, sorry folks, there’s only one side, and it supports evolution and global warming. The denialists make basic scientific errors, lie cherry picking data (the 10 year cooling argument is a good example) and use all the same tactics, as I illustrate here:

http://scienceavenger.blogspot.com/2008/04/kevin-mccullough-on-global-warming.html

and here’s why I think this “fair and balanced” mindset is not at all intellectually sound:

http://scienceavenger.blogspot.com/2008/04/fair-and-balanced-culture-and-why.html

Happy thinking.

By: Phil

Phil — Wed, 14 May 2008 18:05:57 +0000

John Bay, #10: All your arguments are faulty because you jumped from reason 4 to reason 6.
Naah, just kidding. Good post!

By: AnotherSqueezedRadish(orTurnip?)

AnotherSqueezedRadish(orTurnip?) — Tue, 13 May 2008 04:34:38 +0000

John Bay, Amen brutha,
“Science” Avenger,
Check your science (and your scientific method),
And oh yeah, here’s one to make you really red faced and sputtery:
What made the lightening that struck the mud that came to life and became everything that’s um, alive? Not just “what made the lightening”, but you know, what made the like, kinda, just slightly complex and very elegant laws of physics that govern how lightening is formed and how it behaves. Where did these amazing and complex processes come from, where did atoms come from? Why do electrons behave the way they do? Where did matter come from, and why is it arranged in such uniform and spectacularly useful ways? Why does it all behave in specific, very meaningful and very beneficial, useful and predictable ways that we call “Laws”, how did the complexities of gravity and electromagnetism get worked out, things we don’t even fully understand yet, but somehow they work, perfectly, they just, formed, out of, stuff, stuff that floats, and ummm… Well, its mystery, like magic, you just have to have faith, it all just happened, you gotta have faith, it just…appeared ok! that’s what happened! i know it because….well, because…, Well, anyway, yeah, it all just appeared on its own, I wasn’t there, but I know it happened that way. No cause and effect here huh, but a whoooole lotta faith. (Oh wait, it was a BIG BANG that made all that complicated stuff! Like atoms and time and space and gravity and the laws of physics, A really SMART big bang!, Well, there you have it!)
Avenge me that, Mr, Uh “Science”

By: Phil

Phil — Mon, 12 May 2008 02:51:39 +0000

A classic scene in “Fiddler on the Roof”:
The town rabbi is confronted by an argument between two villagers. To the first, he says, “You’re right!” When the second makes a contradictory argument, he responds, “You’re right, too!” A third villager looking on asks, “But rabbi, how can they both be right?!” To which the rabbi replies, “And you’re right, too!”

By: The Brothers Winn

The Brothers Winn — Thu, 08 May 2008 16:25:19 +0000

An argument about arguing, eh Phil? Well, winning is generally important with people who like to argue, so I am going to focus on that! Mr. Y needs to bring Mr. Z into the argument so he can be right, because Mr. X said there were only two sides and Mr. Z coming in would make it three. But Mr. X might beat him to it and restate his argument saying “there are two or more sides to every argument.” And that would leave Mr. Y hung out to dry, because then there are only two outcomes – everyone agrees with Mr. X (so there is no argument) or someone disputes his amended statement thereby making him correct. So I guess someone out there has be the lone voice of irrationality and say there aren’t two or more sides to every argument in order to make it true that there are. Tricky …

By: John Bay

John Bay — Thu, 08 May 2008 08:00:36 +0000

Science Avenger, here is a short list of errors and misrepresentations in this one post alone. 1. By definition an argument HAS to have two or more sides! If not, its a consensus. And there are at least two sides to both the issues you brought up. 2. Carbon offsets? Even if everyone agreed they are necessary (and they don’t) there would still be the debate of how much and how best to go about it. Clearly it is still an issue with at least two sides. 3. Social security? Are you really try to say that there is only one way (your way) to fix it? Because that destroys all your credibility. There was Bill Clinton’s plan to privatize it for one. (What a disaster that would have been!) Then there is the “cut benefits” and “raise taxes” method. Do I need to continue? The fact is, when people disagree in a democratic arena you have to work it out. You can’t just stomp you foot and scream about how your way is the only way. It just doesn’t work. If your arguments seem ridiculous so far, read on. Next stop – asinine. 4. Where in the video did he claim that the “only” reason people might be angry is that they are closed-minded? He didn’t! It was an example, not the absolutist statement your post casually manipulates it into. Chalk up another huge logical fallacy. And there are more to follow. 6. “He obviously knows he is making statements that can’t be defended with evidence” – Really? How is it obvious? It sounds like an assumption to me. Not only an assumption, but ironically one that has no evidence to defend it! So once again my pseudo-scientific friend, your arguments leave you with no leg to stand on. 7. Like many self-professed scientists, you use the word “facts” very freely. Or in the this specific case “easily researched facts”. But I think by facts you really meant “conclusions drawn from data observed.” And this “easily researched data observed’ is subject to interpretation beyond one person or even one groups assertions. That is fundamental part of scientific peer review and the scientific process. Believe it or not, there are scientists who disagree with you. Maybe next time you should think through your arguments before you post. Lastly, I interject an assumption of my own. I am going to go out on limb (a very short and sturdy limb) and say if these videos had sung the praises of Climate Change paranoia and Neo-Darminsim you probably would have given him a glowing review and declared him “very open-minded.” I can’t prove it, of course, but given the logically shaky and closed-minded nature of the rest of you arguments, it seems to be a solid interpretation of the data.

By: Phil

Phil — Thu, 08 May 2008 05:45:55 +0000

If there are two sides to every argument, then try this argument out for size:
Mr. X argues that there are two sides to every argument.
However, Mr. Y argues that there aren’t two sides to every argument.

By: buttfactoid

buttfactoid — Tue, 06 May 2008 20:15:35 +0000

Science Avenger,
Two sides to every story, does not mean that the other side is right. You just need to be aware that there may be valid points to the other side. I would not call him closed-minded. You yourself are proving what he is saying by posting your comment.You are giving another side to the argument. To be open minded is to be willing to listen even though you may not agree eye to eye. Such as Global Warming. One side says that it’s a problem the other says other wise. Both groups have “scientific evidence” to back up what they are saying. If you look at people who argue about it though, many won’t even let the other person finish a sentence. Those people are closed-minded.

By: Science Avenger

Science Avenger — Sun, 04 May 2008 22:54:38 +0000

Two sides to every argument? Tell me, what are the “two sides” of the issue of carbon offsets? How about how to solve the social security crisis? This “two sides”, “fair and balanced” jargon is just an attempt to get garbage theories with little to no evidenciary backing more credibility in the public eye than they deserve, promulgated by people tied to the American us-vs-them political mindset.

There are a ton of reasons why someone might get angry and redfaced in an argument, being closed-minded is but one. Being lied to, or about, or having one’s arguments ignored, or misrepresented, or facing someone willfully ignorant of easily researched facts, or who repeats same are other, very common ones.

Claiming otherwise is, well, closed-minded. But given the number of times this guy commits these sins on his other issues, like global warming and evolution, I can see why he’d want to plant the idea that anyone who get’s redfaced at him doing so is just being closed-minded. He obviously knows he is making statements that can’t be defended with evidence, so his only defense is to point at his critics anger and claim they are closed-minded. How closed-minded of him.

By: Alex

Alex — Sat, 03 May 2008 09:05:14 +0000

Oh my god, I laughed so hard at that closing statement :).
I actually consider myself open-minded. This of course means that I ‘lose’ most discussions for actually seeing some merit in the other’s ideas…

By: John from NIU

John from NIU — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 18:14:22 +0000

depends on how many cars were in the accident and how many eyewitnesses there were at the scene, Ingrid.
:)

By: Ingrid

Ingrid — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 10:20:43 +0000

only two sides to every story?

I always thought there were at least ten…

By: Lilmissgeek

Lilmissgeek — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 05:43:49 +0000

-sits back and enjoys the fun-

By: Dave

Dave — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 03:51:03 +0000

I shall be very displeased if I am insufficiently displeased by the displeasing claims you promise. I think. Wait. Er… Is that a good thing or not?

By: John from NIU

John from NIU — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 03:30:25 +0000

So say we all!
A+
However, ponder this: “Let’s be open minded, but not to the point where our brains fall out.”
~R. Dawkins