Open minds are closed

To me, having an “open mind” means that when someone suggests something that seems ridiculous, you evaluate it thoughtfully instead of dismissing it automatically.

Are you sure that you are not living in an Orwellian World of Doublespeak? This sounds like the neocon thinking present at the Exucutive Branch of our Government today.

Having an open mind is not only possible but practical. Intellegent people generally and specifically have open minds. The population that comprises the average and less than average intellegentia do not have open minds. They are generally incapable of genuine thinking. They are not capable of abandoning the simplest of faulty premises.

Oh, yes, the open minded may come into a discourse with others with their very own prejudices…That is, they also may have beliefs which are without base…They may have undefendable thoughts. But when presented with factual information that invalidates the prejudice, or, rather their hypothesis, then the intellegent, open minded individual will reject the faulty hypothesis or modify the hypothesis to include the factual, and verifiable new data presented.

John’s comment defines the open mind somewhat too succinctly. So I will add to his thought. I will give an expanded thesis as to what comprises the open minded and the closed minded.

First, I will agree that Mr. Rumsfeld is an intellegent man. He is most correct in his assessment that you have your knowns, your unknowns, and then your unknown unknowns.

Yet I do not need every possible data set to formulate a valid hypothesis, young man. My hypothesis may be flawed yet I am willing to abandon it if need be. That is the indication of an open mind.

The Scientific Method is the framework behind the open mind. This method of thinking is rather basic and can be illustrated as what follows:

One gathers many quantifiable and qualitative data sets from one’s own senses. Then after awhile, a time, one will discern the predictable patterns of Nature and thus will formulate a hypothesis about the observed phenomenoa.

While testing the hypothesis drawn, if one discovers a data set that does not agree with the formulated hypothesis (which has, at this point, become impressed upon one’s mind as a prejudice) then one either abandons the hypothesis altogether, or, one modifies the hypothesis to include the “anomalous” data set.

The difference between the closed mind and the open mind is pronounced, obvious and as follows:

The one with the closed mind will generally reject the contradictory data set as a valid observation. The one with the open mind, on the other hand, will accept the validity of the new data set and either modify their hypothesis or abandon their hypothesis altogether.

In this manner the one with the closed mind embraces a faulty hypothesis, mainly because of one’s emotions, and does not function as well as the one with the open mind.

A good and simple example to illustrate the Scientific Method is as follows:

What happens if one were to drop an object? It falls, right? Since I have, in this illustration, not yet observed a dropped object fly off into space I can draw the conclusion that dropped objects fall. Now this is a valid hypothesis, right?

Now I am handed a Helium filled balloon. I let it go and it floats upward toward space. Hmmm…Something must be wrong with my hypothesis. Now I must decide to abandon my hypothesis or modify it. Since most data sets fit with dropped objects falling I modify the hypothesis with an exception to Helium filled balloons.

Now I have kept the previous example simple to educate the non-scientifically trained, ignorant “thinker” about the process. However after many centuries of trial and error…

We “know” that the Helium Balloon floats to the sky because the density of the Helium that fills it is much less than that of the density of the mixture of gases in our atmosphere which are at the ground level. The balloon then will float to the height where the buoyant force of the surrounding atmosphere is equivalent to the gravitational force acting upon the Helium filled balloon. This is called Archimedes’ Law acting in concert with the next Law that I will describe.

We also “know” that Gravity creates an attractive force upon the object and the Earth, that both objects attract one another, inversely proportional to the distance between their respective centers of mass squared, and, directly proportional to the product of that of the mass of the Earth and that of the mass of the the object.

The balloon attracts the Earth. The Earth attracts the balloon. Now the motion of the Earth to the balloon is imperceptable due to the large mass of the Earth. The Earth barely budges toward the balloon. But…it does. Now since the balloons’s mass is much less than that of the Earth there is a noticeable acceleration toward the Earth…even while it is flying off. Well anyway that is Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation, young man.

When the buoyant force of the atmosphere is equavalent to the Gravitational Force upon the balloon then the motion stops in accordance to Newton’s Laws of Inertia.

Now I placed quotation marks around that word “know” for a reason young man. Because we don’t “know” anything. Don’t you understand, young man, that the ONLY CLUE THAT I HAVE IS THAT I DO NOT HAVE A CLUE? “If I claim to be a wise man, it means I surely do not know.”(”Carry On You Wayward Son”, Kansas) That lyric in the song is a double entendre if you did not have the clue…

So back to Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation…It is wrong. There were data sets that were not agreeable to this Law. In fact there was an observed pertubation in the orbit of the planet Mercury of a precession of the perihelion of 43 arcseconds per year. That just is not predictable with the Laws of Newtonian Physics.

So then along comes Dr. Albert Einstein…He comes up with the Special and General Theories of Relativity. Using the Mathematics of Tensors to describe the General Theory of Relativity Einstein’s Physics predicted the 43 arcsecond precession of the perihelion of the Mercurian Orbital Path. Thus his General Theory of Relativity was verified, with this prediction, as well as others, and accepted as Scientific fact by the Scientific community.

Now Dr. Einstien claims that Gravitational Attraction is not a force. Previously, 300 years previously that is, Issac Newton claimed that Gravity was a Fundamental Force. That was accepted as Scientific fact. Now Dr. Einstein declared that Gravity is merely a warp in the fabric of Space-Time created by an object with mass. Can you see that he had an open mind? He overthrew a Law that was accepted as scientific fact for over 300 years?

Now this is not to belittle the accomplishments of Sir Issac Newton. We used Newtonian Mechanics to pilot our spacecrafts to the Moon, Inner Planets, Outer Planets, and now, even beyond. Einsteinian Mechanics are far too difficult to use, as of yet, in practical applications.

Now here I am…Is Dr. Einstien correct in his assessment?

Well…Not exactly. His thinking was also a little limited, as MINE ALSO IS. Remember that I previously wrote that “the only clue that I have is that I do not have a clue”. Well I only have a better glimpse of what manifests reality from standing on the shoulders of these minds before me.

So I, little ol’ me, am in the process of developing a little Theory of Coinherence that will expand the thought processes of scientists for years to come. Do you understand that the open mind probes the known unknowns while seeking out the unknown unknowns WITH THE FAITH AND CONFIDENCE THAT IT CAN BE ACHIEVED. Impossible you write?!? Poppycock!!!

Are you telling me, young man, that you, while expressing your arrogance, that it is impossible for me to have an open mind? Are you going to roll your eyes? If so then that would be demonstrative of the closed mind, wouldn’t it? WHO ARE YOU? ARE YOU GOD ALMIGHTY?

Are you erroneously, psychologically projecting your attitudes upon those whom you will not ever meet? In this fashion are you shielding yourself from your own insecurities about the failures of your limited thinking? If so then you are practicing the rejection of a verifiable data set. That would also would be demonstrative of a closed mind, don’t you think?

From the example and back to the point…Now I can develop the process for using Occam’s Razor (the simplest explanation is usually the best explanation…) to creating a theory from a hypothesis. Then I can follow that description on how a theory is transformed into a Scientific Law (Politics)…which is the next steps of the process of the Scientific Method.

(The reader can get an idea of this process, the Scientific Method, on Wikipedia if one chooses to validate or make a vain attempt to invalidate my points.)

However developing the remainder of the process would only be anticlimatic as I have effectively illustrated my point that the open mind is not only possible but practical…and that the limitations of the closed mind are imposed by the emotions of fear of inferiority.

So you, young man, were you ignorant? Or do you have an open mind? Have I opened your eyes? Are you willing to accept this thesis as valid?

Or, are you ever so ready to reject the thesis to satisfy your emotional state? Can you accept that you emotionally cannot handle the fact that you have an average I.Q. and lack the ability to formulate an independent and genuine thought?

Your choice…Yes…It is a choice.

Tall Tom
I Cor 13