Open-Mindedness

I also thought this video is good. So good, in fact, that I think they should show it in schools or an after school special. I just think back to how many times I saw “how a bill get voted into law”. Highly effective, and I never forgot it.

The Eraserhead reference was great.

This is my first post, after spending months reading your brilliant website! I subscribe to a number of atheist blogs, and this is absolutely my favourite.

Fantastic video! It’s going straight in my favourites, and I’ll post it to all my friends, too.

Thanks!

That’s an excellent video. Has anyone here read the article on open-mindedness in the March-April 2009 Skeptical Inquirer? It’s pretty damn good good as well.

Very well thought out arguments, well presented and reasoned.

What a pity it will most likely not be seen by those who need it most. Hello Alex – I’m talking about you …

Good video. Very true.

Too bad that the people that I’d want to show this to, they’d never take a look.

About the anti-science (and anti-technology) thing… (apologies for the length and thanks for reading…)

I did an avalanche training course with a group of about 8 relatively normal-seeming other people. After, we went out for a beer and a meal.

During the course of the conversation I mentioned something about how I like to cook up at least 4 servings of a meal and heat them up later, to save time and energy. One person spoke up that they DON’T (stressed) use microwaves. Another then chimed in about how unhealthy cooking with a microwave was.

This quickly degraded into a lot of head nodding as stories were recalled about microwaved water killing plants in an experiment, a Japanese scientist saying nice and bad things to water and then finding good and bad ice crystals in it, and an experiment on Mythbusters in which plants that heard nice things grew better.

It finished with the training leader whistful trailing off with, “Yeah… there are so many mysteries out there we just don’t know about…”.

I decided to hold my tongue. I knew, given that I hadn’t had a chance to check out the background on these ridiculous stories, there would be no point in trying to get them to think critically. In fact the response would generally be hostile. Even if I could provide the actual events and backgrounds, I doubt it would have done any good.

Is it just that we as human beings LIKE the unknown and LIKE mystery (as long as it doesn’t cause us stress)? Still, I find it fascinating how much their attitude was, “It’s a mystery….. and I have no desire to find out what’s really going on”, and how their fear of science and technology had spread to something as benign as electromagnetic waves vibrating water molecules to produce heat. No real inquisitive spirit.

Makes me glad that I was always a “Why?” kid, and somewhat sad that so many other people want to stay static.

Great video. But will it get through to the people that need it the most? It explains the concept of ‘open mindedness’ perfectly and the flaws behind demanding open mindedness!

I’m a scientist and an athiest. I do not believe in God but I am open to the idea of ‘god’ if presented with tangible evidence. I went to church for a while trying to understand the pull that som many people feel. I know a lot of scientists feel the same way. Its not an out-of-hand rehjection. The idea has simply been put on the shelf untill further evidence can be tested.

Many people would claim that the bible should be evdience enough to proove the existence of God. I would like to counter that satement with the fact that after Dawin’s ‘On the Origin of the Species’ was releaced people kept on testing the concept. It was not left and considered as absolute truth just because it is on paper.

Alas, couldn’t this point also be argued for the other side. Are the scientist in turn being closed minded about the fact that they are calling those who believe in the supernatural closed minded? All this seems to be is a vicious circle of stubbornness and not attempting to consider the other person’s view. Perhaps there is no supernatural, perhaps there is scientific fact behind every unexplained event, but no one is ever 100% sure of anything. Does this make us all closed minded?

@ the ‘Swiss Clinical study’ by jruthkelly, about microwaves and food.

I started reading the article with interest, thinking there might be something in it if there were proper experiments involved. But very soon, I found it to degenerate to rubbish.

Molecules vibrating 1-100billion times a second? Do you have any idea what you’re talking about?

One, even though the microwave runs on AC current, it doesn’t produce “alternating” microwaves. Microwaves, like all other forms of radiation (including visible light), are electromagnetic waves with a certain frequency, which depends on their energy. Do you have any idea of the energy of radiation of 1 billion Hz (i.e. 1GHz)?

Two, the electricity in your home is 50Hz, not “100 Billion”. So the max it can go is 50 times a second.

Three, the energy of the microwaves is converted to heat, which you can sense in your food. If it’s only hot enough for you to eat, I don’t think it’s hot enough to break molecular bonds. (Compare: boiling water is too hot for human skin, but not enough to break the H-O bond. It’s only intense enough to break the hydrogen-bonds amond H2O molecules, and give the molecules enough Kinetic Energy to form vapor. Breaking the H-O bond is one of the steps in one of the techniques to make fuel cells: the energy needed for that to happen is of the order of what is needed to drive cars).

Kudos to the other commenter to that comment who apparently read through the whole thing. I gave up when I came across the “Atoms, molecules, and cells hit by this hard electromagnetic radiation are forced to reverse polarity 1-100 billion times a second” nonsense.

Christopher Columbus went to Hispaniola and thought it was India.

He was certainly on the right track, but he still believed things that today we would consider to be absurd.

Perhaps in five hundred years people will view religions similarly?

Science has limited knowledge of the world at any given time. As the video said open mind is necessary for exploration. Electricity is an easy example of something that has existed for ages and our knowledge of it was limited until very recntly in human history. Is it possible there is a “spiritual realm”? Or another dimension? Check your open mindedness before answering.

Are you talking about Pascal’s Wager? I seriously dispute that.

There are so many different gods and religions. How do you know you picked the right one?

BTW does Daniel comment on his own threads? Or just disappear?

Daniel Florien is the owner of this blog.

Speaking of observations, what observations have you used to come to your current beliefs? (This is very close to the how question I’ve also asked you, but in more detail).

I meant, I am able to observe the historical evidence that we have. Why shouldn’t I make use of our available knowledge?

Hmm….

I’m not sure I agree with either your first or your second reason.

What do you mean by “honesty”? Could you elaborate? What are you referring to, exactly? A sense of order, perhaps?

Also, why do you assume that things had to have a maker? Just because someone told you? Is that a good reason?

mike00000000001’s comments have been deleted for spamming. Dude, if you’re going to comment, comment. Don’t write 50 comments in a row.

So teleprompter’s comments look weird now. Sorry, tele!

Religious ideologies need to be dismantled. I am so tired of all these fairytale superstitions. Religion has no place in the 21st century.

I am so glad that more videos like this are surfacing on YouTube.

Although I am no athiest, I like learning about different viewpoints and this video was indeed a great definition of open mindedness. I especially liked the part where the narrator mentions that just because he doesn’t believe in something doesn’t mean that he thinks that it is not true but that he actually needs more evidence to support it.

However, I don’t agree with how the video generalizes certain sorts of people like for example the idea that those who believe in God and not incarnation and vice-versa are open minded only when you agree with them which is actually close minded.

There’s still something I’d like to understand about athiesm (or at least some people who claim to be athiests; I can’t really generalize): why when asked of what they believe they say “I believe in science”? I mean there are religious people who do believe in science (and even scientists who were indeed religious like Darwin) and there are even religions that support scientific thinking, pondering, and wondering, and questioning the evidence and sources, and science is thus incorporated into the religion which considers learning science as a way of “worship” or “meditating”. To me at least, I find it close minded to think that religious people don’t believe in science or are close minded.

I hope you could help answer these questions for me, since I think especially in a very globalized world, it is very important to understand other viewpoints and to learn what things people may be sensitive to certain sorts of people.

Again, thanks for sharing

Thanks so much for posting that. I have a few people I’d like to unleash upon, because it says all that I have either been to frustrated or inarticulate to say myself.

Um, I posted this video on my site too, and a friend of mine (Steve B) responded:

“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.”

I’m struggling to find a way that I can believe that he hasn’t missed the point entirely! Anyone got any ideas?

If you have a moment, please feel free to respond. He’s a nice chap, by the way!

http://www.pinksy.co.uk/index.php/2009/04/04/open-mindedness/

I agree, and I was thinking this guy should have a TV show as well. Almost like Penn and Teller’s “Bullshit” except less goofy, and more serious and analytical.

If you were a know-it-all, then you’d be God! Next time someone accuses you of that, demand worship and monetary sacrifice.

I suppose you can be open-minded to anything or…not. But that doesn’t mean you’ll actually know what you’re talking about. But this you all know so well. My apologies for the length of this article (it is but one of plenty)…

The Swiss clinical study
Dr. Hans Ulrich Hertel, who is now retired, worked as a food scientist for many years with one of the major Swiss food companies that do business on a global scale. A few years ago, he was fired from his job for questioning certain processing procedures that denatured the food.
In 1991, he and a Lausanne University professor published a research paper indicating that food cooked in microwave ovens could pose a greater risk to health than food cooked by conventional means.
An article also appeared in issue 19 of the Journal Franz Weber in which it was stated that the consumption of food cooked in microwave ovens had cancerous effects on the blood. The research paper itself followed the article. On the cover of the magazine there was a picture of the Grim Reaper holding a microwave oven in one of his hands.
Dr. Hertel was the first scientist to conceive and carry out a quality clinical study on the effects microwaved nutrients have on the blood and physiology of the human body.
His small but well controlled study showed the degenerative force produced in microwave ovens and the food processed in them. The scientific conclusion showed that microwave cooking changed the nutrients in the food; and, changes took place in the participants’ blood that could cause deterioration in the human system.
Hertel’s scientific study was done along with Dr. Bernard H. Blanc of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology and the University Institute for Biochemistry.
In intervals of two to five days, the volunteers in the study received one of the following food variants on an empty stomach: (1) raw milk; (2) the same milk conventionally cooked; (3) pasteurized milk; (4) the same raw milks cooked in a microwave oven; (5) raw vegetables from an organic farm; (6) the same vegetables cooked conventionally; (7) the same vegetables frozen and defrosted in a microwave oven; and (8) the same vegetables cooked in the microwave oven.
Once the volunteers were isolated, blood samples were taken from every volunteer immediately before eating. Then, blood samples were taken at defined intervals after eating from the above milk or vegetable preparations.
Significant changes were discovered in the blood samples from the intervals following the foods cooked in the microwave oven. These changes included a decrease in all hemoglobin and cholesterol values, especially the ratio of HDL (good cholesterol) and LDL (bad cholesterol) values.
Lymphocytes (white blood cells) showed a more distinct short-term decrease following the intake of microwaved food than after the intake of all the other variants. Each of these indicators pointed to degeneration.
Additionally, there was a highly significant association between the amount of microwave energy in the test foods and the luminous power of luminescent bacteria exposed to serum from test persons who ate that food.
This led Dr. Hertel to the conclusion that such technically derived energies may, indeed, be passed along to man inductively via eating microwaved food.
According to Dr. Hertel,
“Leukocytosis, which cannot be accounted for by normal daily deviations, is taken very seriously by hemotologists. Leukocytes are often signs of pathogenic effects on the living system, such as poisoning and cell damage.
The increase of leukocytes with the microwaved foods were more pronounced than with all the other variants. It appears that these marked increases were caused entirely by ingesting the microwaved substances.
This process is based on physical principles and has already been confirmed in the literature. The apparent additional energy exhibited by the luminescent bacteria was merely an extra confirmation.
There is extensive scientific literature concerning the hazardous effects of direct microwave radiation on living systems. It is astonishing, therefore, to realize how little effort has been taken to replace this detrimental technique of microwaves with technology more in accordance with nature.
Technically produced microwaves are based on the principle of alternating current. Atoms, molecules, and cells hit by this hard electromagnetic radiation are forced to reverse polarity 1-100 billion times a second.
There are no atoms, molecules or cells of any organic system able to withstand such a violent, destructive power for any extended period of time, not even in the low energy range of milliwatts.
Of all the natural substances – which are polar – the oxygen of water molecules reacts most sensitively. This is how microwave cooking heat is generated – friction from this violence in water molecules.
Structures of molecules are torn apart, molecules are forcefully deformed, called structural isomerism, and thus become impaired in quality. This is contrary to conventional heating of food where heat transfers convectionally from without to within.
Cooking by microwaves begins within the cells and molecules where water is present and where the energy is transformed into frictional heat.
In addition to the violent frictional heat effects, called thermic effects, there are also athermic effects which have hardly ever been taken into account. These athermic effects are not presently measurable, but they can also deform the structures of molecules and have qualitative consequences.
For example the weakening of cell membranes by microwaves is used in the field of gene altering technology. Because of the force involved, the cells are actually broken, thereby neutralizing the electrical potentials, the very life of the cells, between the outer and inner side of the cell membranes.
Impaired cells become easy prey for viruses, fungi and other microorganisms. The natural repair mechanisms are suppressed and cells are forced to adapt to a state of energy emergency – they switch from aerobic to anaerobic respiration. Instead of water and carbon dioxide, the cell poisons hydrogen peroxide and carbon monoxide are produced.”
The same violent deformations that occur in our bodies, when we are directly exposed to radar or microwaves, also occur in the molecules of foods cooked in a microwave oven.
This radiation results in the destruction and deformation of food molecules. Microwaving also creates new compounds, called radiolytic compounds, which are unknown fusions not found in nature. Radiolytic compounds are created by molecular decomposition – decay – as a direct result of radiation.
Microwave oven manufacturers insist that microwaved and irradiated foods do not have any significantly higher radiolytic compounds than do broiled, baked or other conventionally cooked foods.
The scientific clinical evidence presented here has shown that this is simply a lie. In America, neither universities nor the federal government have conducted any tests concerning the effects on our bodies from eating microwaved foods. Isn’t that a bit odd?
They’re more concerned with studies on what happens if the door on a microwave oven doesn’t close properly. Once again, common sense tells us that their attention should be centered on what happens to food cooked inside a microwave oven.
Since people ingest this altered food, shouldn’t there be concern for how the same decayed molecules will affect our own human biological cell structure?
Industry’s action to hide the truth
As soon as Doctors Hertel and Blanc published their results, the authorities reacted. A powerful trade organization, the Swiss Association of Dealers for Electro-apparatuses for Households and Industry, known as FEA, struck swiftly in 1992.
They forced the President of the Court of Seftigen, Canton of Bern, to issue a “gag order” against Drs. Hertel and Blanc. In March 1993, Dr. Hertel was convicted for “interfering with commerce” and prohibited from further publishing his results. However, Dr. Hertel stood his ground and fought this decision over the years.
Not long ago, this decision was reversed in a judgment delivered in Strasbourg, Austria, on August 25, 1998. The European Court of Human Rights held that there had been a violation of Hertel’s rights in the 1993 decision.
The European Court of Human Rights also ruled that the “gag order” issued by the Swiss court in 1992 against Dr. Hertel, prohibiting him from declaring that microwave ovens are dangerous to human health, was contrary to the right to freedom of expression. In addition, Switzerland was ordered to pay Dr. Hertel compensation.

@LRA “the right frequency” – at a high cost to the body’s specific needs for nutrition – will certainly heat up your food to say the very least and to ignore all else it will do. Many things heat up food. Ovens do it differently. They don’t start from the inside and work out, as microwaves do, disfiguring and mutating the original cellular structure of your food to such levels as to deform nutrition and risk health (actually it’s best to eat things raw but I’m probably too open-minded for the folks on this thread and maybe even too scientific). They start from the outside and work in.

Science is a good starting point, but if you use it you must follow it rigorously. You can’t simply grab a fragment of string theory (extra dimensions) and use it to back up any supernatural claim (ghosts). That’s simply a non sequitur.

My microwave is regulally used to re-heat leftovers. I’m still heer with all the correct body parts and only one head.

I think you took the right approach Arlo with keeping your head down. It sounds like an argument you could never win.

On a similar note my 97 year old uncle has refused flat out to eat any form of beef (british or otherwise) ever since the BSE outbreak years ago!! He even tells the local butcher that it isnt safe to be sold and how could he live with himself? We have given up trying to convince him that its safe now.

In tend to think of it the other way — until we have evidence that our form of inteligent life is some how inherently unique then it’s best to assume that other life forms are at least ‘equal’ to us our out there somewhere.

The maths for the probability is easy to describe but coming up with the number to input is the tricky bit.

Thanks for the kudos. Being somewhat of a scientific nitpick, I will point out one thing, though. Although a microwave oven is powered by 50 Hz AC, it works by generating microwaves via a magnetron at 2450 MHz.

I don’t know how many times per second this causes a water molecule to realign (for all I know, billions may be correct), but anyway it’s not enough to break any molecular bonds, and neither is it applicable to other molecules or atoms in general, contrary to what that article said. I’m extremely critical of the credentials of any scientist who would say such a thing.

Yes, I acknowledge our human limitations.

What I am asking, is why exactly we should smuggle in unproven notions of “spirituality” into the holes in our knowledge?

Why do we need to do this?

Let’s really acknowledge humility, and just say, I don’t know.

Let’s not say “it could be spiritual”. Let’s just stick with “we don’t know yet”. But people keep using ignorance as an excuse to smuggle spirituality into arguments when they shouldn’t.

This is why I responded in the way I did.

He sometimes comments on his own threads. It happens often enough.

Nice. I see where jruthkelly got the evidence for her “open-mindedness”. And it doesn’t really surprise me that Dr Hertel appears to be a total loon.

Time for popcorn, I think.

I WAS SO CONFUSED.

Very well said. I wish this could be summed up in three words or something, because it’s an explanation that has to be repeated often.

“One of the reasons for the chasm of misunderstanding between atheists and theists is that they both start with one or the other belief and build their entire belief structure around their foundational belief.”

This is in fact what theists tend to do. It is not what atheists tend to do.

Atheists tend to examine the available evidence and then make decisions about the eixtence/nonexistence of gods. If you want to argue that the examination of evidence in deciding the existence of things is a starting “belief,” I suppose you can squeeze atheists in to your definition. I would note however that theists use that same methodology for examining the existence of almost everything but a particular god.

I understand that order can come out of chaos, like ripples on a lake as a result of a raindrop or a stone thrown in. This chaos can create some manner of order as a result of an underlying order, such as the surface tension of the water, the cohesion of water molecules, etc.
Sufficient insight? Like as soon as I become as smart as you I will see straight? No offense taken.

I had a feeling my comment about insight might sound somewhat condescending, but I didn’t know how else to phrase it. I’m not pretending to be smarter than you, or that I know all the answers, but I AM saying that your comment about explosions and randomness does not reflect the actual science purporting to explain life or the cosmos. As such, I don’t see it as a good argument for your case, and as such, we’re not just talking about differing perspectives.

To get back to the topic of chaos and order, the real kicker is that order can arise without the presence of any underlying order. Order need not exist beforehand for it to emerge. For example, cosmological models have no need for an initial ordered state preceeding the Big Bang, although we find lots of order in the universe (and in biological life) today.