Fun for skeptics and believers alike!
by endlesspsych
There has been some hoohaw over on natural news courtesy of everyone’s favourite healthranger (note that r is but a short keypress away from d…) Mike Adams (who I have blogged about before here). It seems the twitter based shorty awards disqualification (more here and here and here) and the 1023 campaign may have broken his fragile little naturopath mind. His ranting here is impressive – it’s scary though to see how quickly not getting ones own way translates into vast and mysterious conspiracies though… How do these peoples minds work? I don’t mean in a general why do they think what they think but literally how does one persons brain cope with so much nonsense and cognitive dissonance?
My mind boggles just trying to conceive it!
Anyway you can see on natural news Mike “Healthdanger” Adams ranting and raving about what skeptics supposedly believe (You can see fiskings of this here and here and here.) and finally posting this article in which he claimed to get lots of support from “holistic thinkers” (whatever that means – sounds a bit culty to me!) along side condemnation from the Skeptical community. Which asides from the following quote
They’re tired of being insulted and demeaned by the skeptics who have for years gotten away with blasting holistic thinkers without receiving much criticism themselves. So we turned the tables on the skeptics and showed the world how crazy some of their beliefs are. It is absolutely true that the most ardent skeptics believe they have no consciousness, no soul, no free will and not even a mind. People thought I made this up, but I didn’t. It’s one of the core beliefs among classic “skeptics” (they will even tell you this themselves).
Also drags the name of Richard Feynman into the dirt – apparently he was unusually open-minded for a scientist…
One can only assume that Mike Adams is using that definition of open-minded beloved of the alternative medicine crowd.
He who insists on disagreeing with me because all the scientific evidence says I am wrong is close minded!
When in reality Mike Adams and his sCAM cronies are about as open-minded as those who refused to look through Galileo’s telescope and see the truth for themselves.
There is really no need for me to go over and explain open-mindedness to you all but hey any excuse to post one of Qualia-Soups excellent videos!
Basically if you have an open mind you have to be open to evidence that might cause you to challenge or refute your beliefs. Going by that definition I have created a “cut out and keep” flowchart for skeptics and believers to discover if they are open or closed-minded.
Enjoy.
EDIT: Please note that the use of “IS” in the second question is not meant to imply the actual existance of evidence merely to ask if you can concieve of evidence that would refute your position.
Are you open minded or close minded?
Cheers
and your electron microscope 
“Skeptics believe that DEAD foods have exactly the same nutritional properties as LIVING foods (hilarious!).”
What is LIVING (sic) food? Surely, unless you are actually taking a bit out of a lettuce that’s still rooted in the ground, all food is dead. The health-ranger seems like a strange, delusional and probably highly dangerous man.
Mans nuts.
That can be deliberatly taken many ways
Just like “mans nuts”
I liked (well, not liked) the part where he says that skeptics don’t believe in consciousness. Since, regarding the matter, it’s either Cartesian mind-body dualism or bust.
Is this reference to my ongoing disdain for dualism?
More a reference to mine.
Screw Dualism.
Screw Dualism twice.
Just to be sure.
That’s funny, that’s funny and I’m not sure why, not sure why.
I had a huge rant on Facebook about this.
Hythlodaeus – I thought the living food thing was hilarious! I had a mental image of him chowing down on a live cow.
and “Skeptics believe that the human body has no ability to defend itself against invading microorganism and that the only things that can save people from viral infections are vaccines”
What? He really thinks some people don’t believe in the immune system?
I think he may be playing to the crowd.
I hope so.
Somehow is nicer to think of him as a manipulative con man then it is a “true believer” (With apologies to Stan Lee)
“He who insists on disagreeing with me because all the scientific evidence says I am wrong is close minded!”
Poe’s law?
I really don’t know what to say to someone who thinks like this, it’s just a fundamental part of my being that if what you believe, as how reality works, is proven wrong you need to reconsider your belief. Evidence is used to support an argument and if it’s against you that hurts your argument.
It’s different if there’s not enough evidence to say either way (for example, dualism is impossible to confirm or deny because we just can’t gather evidence that disproves or proves the soul so that goes either way, at least until we can) but if the evidence actually says you’re wrong I’d have to say that that’s as far as I’d be able to follow their argument.
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by endless_psych: New Blog: Are you open-minded? http://bit.ly/dgGMdV #ten23 #homeopathy #altmed #skepticism…
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by pulseproject, jdc 325, lesmondine, MultiTask Computing, Keir Liddle and others. Keir Liddle said: RT @jdc325: Nice work: RT @endless_psych: New Blog: Are you open-minded? http://bit.ly/dgGMdV #ten23 #homeopathy #altmed #skepticism […]
[…] From here. […]
Funny, but I don’t think that is their definition of open-mindedness. Rather, it’s something like:
Open-mindedness: the willingness to accept any form of evidence in support of one’s biases, while ignoring any evidence that contradicts it.
I think open-mindedness is more of a shorthand for not accepting or understanding science.
Or a way of associating yourself with “radical” thinking. Which is only radical by virtue of how spectacularly odd it is.
I might go farther and say “open-mindedness” is an outright rejection of science, UNLESS science validates (or perceives to validate) the otherwise fringe belief.
Is there evidence that would convince you otherwise?
That sort of inspired a blog post, thanks!
http://scepticalbanter.com/2010/01/what-evidence-would-convince-you-homeopathy-worked/
This flow chat tripped me up right away! First it wants to know if I believe? *no* Next is there any evidence that would convince me otherwise? This is not a yes or no answer. My answer to this question was no, unless somebody has some proof that they are not sharing with the rest of the word. Evidence and proof are to different things. many millions of people consider the bible to be evidence and if the existence of god were put on trial it my even be tagged as such, however the preponderance of evidence seem to refute the existence of god. I think I would want proof. People have been shoveling evidence in my face, my entire life. Just nit picking, It’s actually very cleaver and I promise to be careful on the toilet
Well it says “do you believe/ hold to be true”.
What would the proof that would convince you be?
Evidence I would suggest.
The point being that to say you will continue to believe or disbelief something without even considering that the alternative could be true (or indeed that their are alternatives) then you are close-minded.
If you take the example of believing or not in god (I always wonder about not capitalising this – makes sense if its a concept as oppossed to assuming some deity exists called god aye?) then whether the answer is yes or no then if you want to be considered undogmatic, skeptical or indeed open-minded then you have to accept that there is evidence that might disprove gods existance (very much so in the case of any deity that has been defined) or indeed evidence that might prove a deities existance.
It’s why gnostic atheistism is less desirable then DE-FACTO atheism. Which leaves the door open for some deity or other to prove their existance but doesn’t adopt a faith position on their non-existance.
No I think what tripped me up was the word “is” not the concept of open mindedness. The chart wishes to know “is” there evidence? and the answer is; not hat I am aware of. You see where I’m going with this? The chart should ask would I except scientifically repeatable proof of gods existence? The answer to that would be yes! As I said before I was just nit picking, I really do get it.
Logically, if you’re open minded and evidence could convince you and you know about the evidence then you would always hold it to be true/false. The flow chart asks if evidence could cause you to hold otherwise.
I think it’s clear that you would need to become aware of the evidence in the future for the evidence to convince you otherwise because if you knew it already you’d already have been convinced.
Oh and by the way to not capitalize god because it pisses off the theists is fun, but grammatically speaking you are right; you shouldn’t have to. You would capitalize Peter Pan because It is a proper name but god is not. Jehovah on the other hand is. jahovah jahovah jahovah he he he!
“Is there any evidence that would convince you otherwise?” is a yes or no question. The open question would be “What is the evidence that would convince you otherwise?” and that can’t be answered with yes or no.
@Zedge
I see where you are going. But in fairness I think that in the context the use of the word “is” hasn’t confused that many folk…
Although I see it is ambigious.
Point taken, now give it a rest. I was just kidding! [sitting on the toilet backwards] do you understand the concept of “nit picking”?
I understand the concept of “nit picking” yes.
I hope you don’t think I am driven into some sort of mad internet based fury or radge at your reply. I didn’t particularly think that the above comment warranted a reply.
I’ve put the correction in because I’m a bit anal and I don’t want believer mates who come across this to misunderstand and say that the things flawed so they are still “open-minded” because their brains have fallen out 😉
PS. Had a swatch at your blog – good luck with the atheism! I imagine it’s a bit harder to be a non-believer over there then it is over here!
@ endlesspsych Yeah It’s the pitts, the fundies are claiming my country was founded as a Christian nation and the whole time I thought it was founded on freedom, man was I surprised! George bush Sr. (while president) made a statement once, that he didn’t think that atheists should be considered citizens. People think I’m in league with the devil if I tell them I’m an atheist.
Ps I was pulling your leg. Sorry I just like baiting people sometimes. No hard feelings?
None at all old chap.
On occassion the Internet can be very British I fear. With misuderstandings and fumbling attempts at making things clear being at a premium!
I believe there is evidence to suggest that many of the founding fathers were atheists. Ben Franklin for one (unless he wasn’t a founding father and my grasp of American history is worse then I thought!)
There’s a worse implication of the flowchart: that someone has to be smart enough to describe the type of evidence that would make him change his mind. That’s wrong, as I describe in my blog: http://whyihavenomonument.blogspot.com/2010/01/argument-from-ignorance-and-cutting.html