Hmm. I understand what you mean,and I think schizophrenia-like symptoms could result. Medically, it would not be classified as schizophrenia, though, because there are other aspects of the disease.
Printable View
Hmm. I understand what you mean,and I think schizophrenia-like symptoms could result. Medically, it would not be classified as schizophrenia, though, because there are other aspects of the disease.
I have to disagree to the few who believe you can not be too open mined. For a couple of reasons.
To me it can fall into two or maybe more catagories. Open minded as to question everything or open minded, but ignorant. By ignorant I mean not educated in any particular area.
This can be dangerous because it can lead too being heavily influenced or brain washed.
But if you question things from all sides come to your best educated decision, then it can open new avenues and open many doors.
Howetzer, you hit on an interesting point.
Do you think uneducated people have a responsibility to educate themselves? Or do you think society has an obligation to educate them?
As I see it, one requires a significant degree of open-mindedness. The other doesn't.
I'd tend to refer to your lycanthropy example as a pathological delusion, rather than schizophrenia.
But, yeah, a serious mental breakdown gradually fostered over time is absolutely within the realm of reason...
------------
As far as the diamagnetism thang goes, a friend was working on a paper at Cal regarding this. He had an alternative explanation. I should look it up. I was graduating and out-of-there, and really couldn't care less at the time. I brought the toys, observed the readings, noted the readings, and moved on. I think, since it's topical, I'll look him up and see what became of it.
The upshot is that I observed, in a successful "levitation" shifts, as memory serves, in excess of 40% for periods of ~15-30seconds. These were not present during controls.
We were pretty serious about blinding the experiment. A third-party observer (and video camera) marked the tests as "success" or "no success", without access to the order in which control and live would be run. Another third party in the room oversaw the participants and when it would be live and control. I was in another room from those, with readouts from my equipment. I had no contact with the observer, video, or participants. And I marked the readouts solely by timecode. I had a video camera and another person over-seeing me. So all observers were overseen by video. No observer had outside contact. Because the participants had to know whether they were to do it the "right way" or not, they couldn't be blinded easily. So call it a 1.5-blind test. ;) Obviously, they could sandbag it, intentionally or not. But we rotated multiple groups through. And they were all masters+ candidates in physics, electrical engineering, and math. Reasonably solid observers... And my fully-blind prediction of success/failure was exactly 100% based on my meters. That's pretty hard to sandbag 25 for 25 times. The odds are definitely not with you.
My instrumentation is faaaar more advanced (and accurate, and self-logging, and ....) these days. I'd enjoy getting a group of people together and reproducing the results - as well as photographing and video "taping" the results. All of that existed at the time, but the content was his. Now with everything digital, wide-spread dissemination of the results would be trivial.
So the upshot is that I'm not saying diamagnetism is right. I'm saying unexplained significant normalized Gaussian flux was present 100% of the time during success and absent 100% of the time during failure...
Quote:
Originally posted by Ex Nine
Howetzer, you hit on an interesting point.
Do you think uneducated people have a responsibility to educate themselves? Or do you think society has an obligation to educate them?
As I see it, one requires a significant degree of open-mindedness. The other doesn't.
Well it would be difficult for society to educate someone unless they seek it out them selves.
As far as the general populas, I personally would put it on my own shoulders to educate myself. That does not mean others will.
So I guess to answer your question. I believe that people should strive to be more educated. We can not be well versed in all aspects of life. But That is JMO. As far as society,I think they or we as a community could hold better or higher standard to educate people.
What's you take Ex Nine?
[quote]Well it would be difficult for society to educate someone unless they seek it out them selves.
I totally agree. But this is exactly what society does and even mandates for every single person, isn't it? The education of young people regardless of their intentions.
That forceful education encourages and rewards closed-mindedness. Sit in this chair. Next to this person. For this amount of time. At this level of concentration. On this subject. There's very little freedom for a child to adjust the variables on his or her own or self-educate.
I think schooling more than anything (parents and religion not far behind) kills the natural open-minded curosity of people. The belief that society can somehow make people better, makes them worse.
It's only the most basic survival instinct to learn. But, as with any survival instinct, that can be eroded over the course of years. And the most effective erosion occurs during youth.
I in turn agree with you!.
In such a strucured environment does cause people to be narrow minded. Much like church. Look at the coniption fits that people are having over the dabate wether or not to teach intellagent design.
But how many aspects of schooling can you teach?
I guess a lot of the what we call open minded stuff that is seemingly shunned in most schools should be left to the parents.