Essay talk:Critical mind

lolwut--Brxbrx (talk) 18:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

oh so, we keep the talkpage?????--Brxbrx (talk) 18:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Brxbrx. I ressurected just to make a comment. But yeah, we do keep talk pages for deleted articles. Mei III (talk) 18:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

deletion

Deleted for several reasons -

1. That isn't what 'critical' means. It's a redefinition.

2. You can't cite 'most people believe things they know to be untrue' unless you're a telepath.

3. You can't cite it anyway, because it's a contradiction in terms.

4. It was badly written and included broken wiki markup.

Sorry if this is too unilateral. Feel free to restore and discuss if you really want to. Mei III (talk) 18:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

how about this: make it in your userspace first (go too your userpage url, add /Critical_Mind to the end of it, then "create page"--Brxbrx (talk) 18:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Brxbrx: I just did that, Thanks. I don't understand the reasons for delition though. All of them make no sense to me:

1. This is what "critical" in "critical mind" means,
2. I don't cite 'most people believe things they know to be untrue' and of course I'm no telepath,
3. If I don't cite it how "it's a contradiction in terms".
4. I may agree that "It was badly written" since I'm not a native English speaker, and I don't know what is "broken wiki markup".

Also I don't know how to restore it without just copying back to "Critical mind" edit box risking that it is deleted again for reasons I don't understand. JimJast (talk) 20:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

1. My point is that you invented the term. This isn't an accepted meaning or 'critical' or 'critical mind'. It's a new phrase you invented, and unsuitable for mainspace. Please tell me if I'm wrong.

2. You referred to a statistic. You should cite it. If you can't cite it, why do you believe it's true?

3. see 2.

4. You put in three redirect commands at the end, which only work once for any page, and only work at all if they're right at the top. Plus, there's no reason to redirect to pages that don't exist. I assume you wanted those pages to redirect here, which would require creating them separately and using redirect commands there.

Mei III (talk) 21:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

1. I didn.t invent the term but heard it at psychology lecture (see my response to Damo in next chapter titled "95%?"

2. I couldn't cite statistics since the only nubers I remember is 5% (and easily deduced from it 95%). I hope that some psychologists will correct them if they are wrong.

3. see 2.

4. I didn't know about it. I read the istruction once and apparently I misunderstood it. When I checked the text it looked OK. There should be a warning that the redirect is bad. I thought it should be done just from the page one is editing. That it has to be at the top didn't occur to me or I forgot before getting to the process of redirecting (which I thought should be done after writing an article when the mind is free for such decisions, as category is too). JimJast (talk) 23:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

95%?

Can you please cite where you got this figure from? I don't think this essay is quite as polished as the last one. I am disappointed that you have let your standards slip so far. --Damo^Hi 21:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Damo: I took the number from a psychology lecture I've been lisning to a several years ago in which the lecturer maintained that according psychologial tests only 5% of people are not letting themselves to be persuaded by a psychologist conducting the test on them that obviously shorter of two perpendicular lines is actually longer. He called them "critical minds". Other 95% agreed that it might be an optical illusion they were fooled by, after the experimenting psychologists used some argumens to convince them that they are mistaken as to the length of those lines. I said "apparently" hoping that some psychologist may come forward with rigth data if these were not accurate enogh. From my own experience they look right to me. And also I'm yet to see a astronomer who wouldn't believe that the universe is expanding since this is contemprary belief of most astronomers who don't know that the universe only looks as expanding while it can't be expanding since it would violate both physics and math. JimJast (talk) 22:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that what you are really saying is that 5% of the population have closed minds and are not prepared to listen to evidence that might contradict what they think they know. Whether this characteristic is a positive one or not is up in the air, at least for me. --Damo^Hi 10:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

5% refers to people who won't believe in somethng that they know is untrue. If one gets persuaded that something is true while one knows it is not or "feels" it is not one is outside those 5% that psychologists call "critical minds". In the society of cheaters it might be a positive characteristic to be in those 5% and among honest people it might be a drwaback. Existence of this 5% seem to indicate that societies are not composed of totally honest people. But it seems to come with genes so if one is born this way nothing can be done about it and it's usless to consider whether it's good or bad. It's like color of your eyes. Whether it's good or bad depends on others. I happen to be born within those 5% and it gave me a lot of trouble at school, while other kids didn't have them. For them was anough to memorize things, while I coudn't having bad memory. For me the only way to learn something was to "undertand it", which is tougher way of learning something, especially languages. That's why I might understand the things that for others don't matter at all. Which I don't mind since it helped me to find out that the universe is not expanding. Somsthing that most astronomers don't know yet. JimJast (talk) 14:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Psychologists call "critical mind"? Really, I can't seem to find the term anywhere. ^sshole 15:41, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't find it anywhere from wikipedia or google, when I checked a couple of days ago. Maybe I should try again. Mei III (talk) 18:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Studies of how easily people can be persuaded to believe false or unverified information and to contradict their own knowledge or beliefs is an interesting area of psychology, but (from the tiny amount I know about it) it's a hellofa lot more complicated than what's presented here. Also, isn't it kindof ironic that an essay about having (or being?) a critical mind is based on something you remember anecdotally from a lecture rather than any verifiable source? Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

No, since this is how people learn languages: hear the description and then (often) forget the source. At least I remembered that I learned the meaning of "critcal mind" from a psychologist. The first time I was suprised that other people don't know this meaning, was when someone deleted my "critical mind" from wikipedia without stating the reason. I did't protest then since wikipedia standards aren't too high: it is edited by guys who, nearly a century after Einstein, still think that "something" attracts them to the Earth. JimJast (talk) 12:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

But the essay isn't about learning languages; it's about being a critical mind. How can you expect people to take you seriously as a critical thinker, let alone somebody who knows things that mainstream science doesn't know yet, when your only justification for all this 95% baloney is "some guy told me it once in a lecture so I know it must be true"? That is not a critical attitude. A critical attitude, especially when encountering something controversial is, as you say yourself elsewhere on this page, to "keep questioning as long as it is needed". Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 09:35, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Can I hear a rimshot for that? ^sshole 20:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

You might if you tell me what "rimshot" is. JimJast (talk) 12:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

A quick Google

reveals this mob who bang on about a Critical Mind. Jim's sort of put a very shortened version in his essay although the 95% figure is a Schlafly Statistic. Quite frankly I'm underwhelmed by The Foundation for Critical Thinking. They seem overly keen to sell their books. Jack Hughes (talk) 15:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Do they use JimJast's definition of the phrase anywhere? All I could find was this, which isn't very close. Mei III (talk) 18:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Replies to JimJast

JimJast, there are several things that confuse me here, so I've split my reply into bullet points. I hope that's alright.

This is actually what I prefer to questions in one big chunk. Then I can answer them easier separately:

• I don't know how you got from 'swayed by pressure from peer groups' to 'believes thing they know are untrue'. This is either a really bad phrasing or an incompetent, self-congratulatory oversimplification. We would need neuroscience from the distant future in order to confidently say 'people believe things they know are untrue'.

Rally bad phrasing: it should be rather 'people believe things they strongly suspect are untrue'. If one knows then one has to be also an idiot. I just took seriously the assumption of good faith, since to be completely exact I'd have to predict all possible misunderstandings and explain each of them separately. It is mor economical way to risk a misunderstanding and explain later. Otherwise I had to explain also what "knows" mean and so on.

• Your citation for the phrase 'critical mind', which the essay seems to imply is an accepted psychological principle, is virtually non-existent. It's not even an appeal to authority. I'd have to call it an 'Appeal to Some Guy Told Me'. If you reference statistics in a serious article, you should link to the study that gives us those statistics.

No. I explained that I heard it at a psychology lecture. I thought it is common knowledge. I was surprised when it got deleted from RW though I was not that from wikipedia as I explained earlier.

• Your references to the expansion of the universe are even more confusing. You say it 'would violate both physics and math', but that gives me very little to go on. Which physical principles does it violate?

The principle of conservation of energy.

The Big Bang (BB) hypohtesis assumes that creation of energy "in small amounts" ("how small?", they don't say) is OK since BB theorists can't come with a solution in which energy is conserved and the universe also looks expanding. I did and possibly for that reason they don't want to print it for over 26 years. Einstein and Feynman gave up fighting them, assuming they are idiots who can't be taken seriously. I live a little later than them. So I see they are just creationists who got into physics through a back door of cosmology. Now they teach physics students "that BB is OK despite violation of conservation of energy since it is required by Noether theorem".

Which mathematical principles does it violate?

The necessity of flatness of spacetime in the universe in which energy can't be created from nothing.

If spacetime is curved you can take the energy-momentum 4-vector and "parallely transport" it to future and have more energy than you started with. So it is the same principle in different "pseudo science" called "math". But people tend to believe math, despite it is knwn that it delievers results which truth depends on assumptions. So if one assumes that BB is real this is what one gets back. So it can be easily manipulated by creationists who are also mathematicians, not physicists though who tend to be atheists (Einstein, Feynman, and every physicists I know, except gravity physicists who are theists for some reason).

Right now, these references to the expansion of the universe just make it look like this 'critical mind' idea is purely a crutch for crank ideas.

That's why it is so difficult to tell a crank from a sane (real) scientist. That's why before deciding something is "stoopid" one has to ask questions. And keep questioning as long as it is needed until you can tell with certeinty that one is a crank. Which usially doesn't take that long if he's really a crank: see Feynman's rant refered to, above.

• Next time you need to create a redirect, I can show you how it works. Just message me on my talk page.

Thank you, I might.

Mei III (talk) 18:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

JimJast (talk) 14:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

When I got to the expansion of the universe part, I just stopped trying to verify anything else. At best, it meant that 5% of the population can't be convinced of anything, including facts, and he was somehow proud to be in this group. And now instead of 95% being "convinced of what they know is not true" I started to read it as "95% can be convinced, with a reasonable explanation, that their perceptions can be fooled" and that made me feel better about humanity, not worse. Quaru^{wigwam - You can't explain that!} 19:04, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I would also prefer to be in the group of people who can be persuaded of things that seemed impossible. How could science progress without that ability? Mei III (talk) 20:17, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

It progresses by discovering things that seemed impossible to those who discovered them. Not by persuading by someone that they might be possible. People mostly don't believe such things ("cranky ideas") and try to burn the persuader. E.g. Giordano Bruno who discovered that there might be no creator of universe (that such creator might be an illusion) was burned for it in 1600.

I'm only trying to explain, based on legitimate physics (the impossibility of perpetual motion machines) that the universe can't be expanding if such expansion requires creation of energy from nothing (as it does).

Bunch of creationists (mostly of Catholic persuasion) wrote a 5 lb. book in which they maintain that the universe is expanding, slower and slower, since the "tremendous gravitational attraction pulls the galaxies back slowing down their movement". Since it requres production of energy from nothing it maens that it is possible in "Einstein's physics". Steven Hawking proposed to check it and this way Superova Cosmology Project was created.

In 1998 it turned out that no, galaxies seem to move away from each other but faster and faster. So the bunch modified their "theory" and said "actually folks, some repulsive gravitation is pushing on galaxies to move them away from each other and that's why the universe is expanding faster and faster.

Today 95% of astronomers support this idea (before they supported the idea that the universe has to expand slower and slower) and many physics students belive in creation of energy from nothing in "Einstein's physics" few of them understanding any of it. And Einstein said "when mathematicians started explaining to me my theory I stopped understanding it". So where have you got an idea that science works the way as you think it does? JimJast (talk) 18:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Isn't it magical how it's always 95%! Never 94% or 96%. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 09:36, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not: its a popular custom to round up to the next multiple of 5. JimJast (talk) 09:48, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

You're missing the point again. How do you know it's 95% (to the nearest 5%) of astronomers who support this idea. Where are you getting this figure from? You can't just make assertions about what 95% of a demographic think or believe & expect others to accept these as facts. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 09:54, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

A reminder

We were doing so well. What happened? Thunderkatz^Ho! 18:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Asch conformity experiments

The research JJ is referring to here is the wp:Asch conformity experiments. However, this usually referred to as the "Asch paradigm" or "conformity effect." I've never heard it referred to as "critical mind," or the 95/5 numbers. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Nebuchadnezzar! That's very helpful. I vaguely remembered that, and wondered if that's what he meant, but I would never have been able to find it on my own. I'm still amazed at how far it's been stretched from its original form. In JJ's version there's a permanent division between people who agree and people who don't, and the conformity thing is hardly mentioned at all. Mei III (talk) 20:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

NP, it's my job to know these things (literally). :) Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Nabu, it was what this lecturer mentioned (and I didn't remember the names, so thanks for reminding it). It was more stuff at the lecture and the phrase was surely "critical mind" as an example of "critical thinking" that the lecture was about.

I'd rather stop dwelling on "critical mind" and use your minds to write some critique of my other essay from which it all came accidentally when I wrote double brackets around "critical minds" and noticed that there is no such item in RW, which surprised me enough to try to fix it :) Remembering suddenly that it was also deleted from WP for an unknown then reason. Might be the same :) JimJast (talk) 20:42, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Wow, Neb, even being familiar with the experiment, I could not grasp what he meant. (You are much further than I ever got in Psychology, but I did manage to get a minor in it) The experiment has nothing to do with "critical mind" and everything to do with "conformity". And only about 75% of the subjects gave wrong answers, not the 95% claimed. Quaru^{wigwam - You can't explain that!} 21:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

science progresses only by disproving things

The essay states:

• It is easier to disprove something than to prove that something is true. While the former is often possible the latter is often impossible. That's why the science progresses only by disproving things, then known as prejudices.

I think there are various problems with this. First of all, in the true scientific sense, nothing is "proved" to be true.

On the other hand, saying "the science progresses only by disproving things" is an unnecessarily negative oversimplification. For instance science also progresses through the gradual accumulation of evidence and the formation of hypotheses and theories.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 21:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Bob, but it depends also on what we call "science. I call "real science" something we don't need to change every time something new gets discovered. For instance the big bang is not "real science" since we don't see the universe expanding. We only assume that it is expanding on the basis of cosmological redshift, interpreted as the evidence of expansion (not a proof of course). So this hangs only on our lack of knowledge what various forms of redshifts might exist, while they all look the same in a telescope.

Before Einstein nobody expected that time may slow down in certain situations causing redshifts. So when astronomers saw redshift they believed it is Doppler redshift which they were familiar with (redshift caused by something that goes away from us). Then it turned out that there is more reasons for the redshifts. Einstein discovered "gravitational redshift" which is not a Doppler shift. For certain mathematical reasons it can't be cosmological redshift. I discovered "general" redshift which is caused by something I call "Hubble Time Dilation" (HTD). Which is not Doppler shift neither but coming from relativity of time (the same which causes "gravitational redshift", another one non-Doppler but with possibility of being cosmological redshift (the one responsible for illusion of expansion). This "general redshfti" is one that was befor taken for Doppler redshift. And movement of galaxies is not needed to produce it, just curvature of space is enough. That's how I know that space is not expanding (as the big bang theorists assumed).

The evidence for it is that it explains many effects that those theorists can't explain with their assumption od Doppler redshift, and I can explain all. Besides I can derive from Einstein's physics their concrete values that are seen in the sky. JimJast (talk) 22:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

'something we don't need to change every time something new gets discovered' is not science. There isn't a specific word for that, but it's basically the exact opposite of science. Mei III (talk) 23:31, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

It is called Dogma. Тy^Talk. 23:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Dogma is a religious belief that can't be channged because it is given by some god with the purpose of believing in it. Science requirest constant testing and setting a hypotheses about the truth. It changes when the truth turns out to be different than we thought, and then it turnes out that it was not so as we thought: it was untrue hypothesis. Once it can't be changed any more because it turns out to be true, it gets a chance to become "real science".

The Big Bang is a faild hypothesis only since simple calculations, which astronomers failed to do, prove that it is "creationist science", not real, unchangasble one that then gains a status of "physical law", as e.g. Archimedes' law. So there is basically no diference if someone believes in ghosts or in the Big Bang. Both stories are fairy tales. And yet, despite the evidence to contrary astronomers believe in the Big Bang. Feynman calls them "idiots" (item 4) in Feynman's classification. I don't, just lazy folks. But result are the same: fooled folks who believed "mathematicians" that they calculated everything right. JimJast (talk) 06:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

So your statement 'That's why the science progresses only by disproving things.' is wrong or at least incomplete then? --Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 06:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes Bob, obviously incomplete. Dogma is most of the time a religious belief that can't be channged because it is given by some God, or some Central Commitee of some Communist Party, with the purpose of believing in it. Science requirest constant testing and setting a hypothises about the truth. It changes when the truth turns out to be different than we thought, and then it turnes out that it was not so as we thought: it was untrue hypothesis. Once it can't be changed any more since it turns out to be true in every test, it gets a chance to become "real science" or a "physical law".

The Big Bang is a failed hypothesis since simple, almost Newtonian calculations, which astronomers failed to do (being so fluent in Newtonian math), prove that it is "creationist science", not real, unchangasble one that gains a status of "physical law", as e.g. Archimedes' law. So there is basically no diference if someone believes in ghosts or in the Big Bang, which already proved to be a false hypotesis (several times by the way). Both stories are fairy tales despite one of them looking like science. And yet, despite the evidence to contrary astronomers believe in the Big Bang. Feynman calls them "idiots" (item 4) in Feynman's classification. I don't cal them names, just lazy folks who think that it is OK to take money for their "scientific" activity, while they're not even checking the facts when someone tells them that physics contrdicts their beliefs. But result are the same: fooled folks who pay with their taxes, believing "mathematicians" that they calculated everything right.

The ways of supporting dogma are not to print papers that contradict the dogma which is done as well in the case of the Big Bang. JimJast (talk) 06:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Since we had this silly "Edit conflict" that RW can't handle smoothly (automagically, as softwre folks say) I look silly repeating most of my stuff twice. But I don't care if you got at least half of it :) JimJast (talk) 11:25, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

To be pedantic it's only repeated once.

The problem was caused by your attempting to incorporate responses to subsequent questions into your first answer. This is not permitted as I pointed out on your talk page. The only way that I could think of of undoing what you did was to reinsert the comments you deleted along with your final, updated, answer.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 12:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

You ae right again :). Repeated once, and I could do it better. I'll try next time. JimJast (talk) 13:19, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Rebuttal

The critical mind is a person who won't believe in somethng that she or he knows is untrue. Well, to know is to have justified true belief (plus maybe some other conditions to get around Gettier examples.) So, to know something is untrue, they must believe it is untrue, be justified in believing it is untrue, and it must actually be untrue. So, the only way anyone could believe in something they knew to be untrue would be if they both believed it and did not believe it simultaneously - if they believed in both a proposition and simultaneously in its negation. Certainly humans are inconsistent creatures, but I don't think such blatant self-contradiction in one's beliefs is particularly common. The conclusion is, that by this definition, almost every mind is a critical mind, and almost no one has an uncritical mind. Which makes this definition effectively useless - what use is there in defining a group of people as "critical minds" if it happens to include close to everybody?

Apparenly such people make only 5% of general population. A very strange claim. As I have demonstrated above, using this definition, very near to 100% of the population are critical minds.

It means that the other 95% may be more or less easily persuaded that what they know as untrue is actually true. I don't think it is very easy to convince normal human beings to believe something yet to believe its negation simultaneously. Some people may well believe both a proposition and its negation, but they are not going to be many. This sentence would be more accurate if the figure "95%" was replaced with "0%".

The critical minds can't be persuaded that what they they know as untrue is true. It is very difficult to convince anybody to both believe in a proposition and its negation. Even the most wacky, irrational people alive will refuse to engage in such blatantly obvious irrationality. Of course, given that almost everyone is a critical mind, it makes sense that almost no one can be convinced to be uncritical.

If they can be pesuaded, they are not critical minds. As very few people can be; but then again, very few people are not critical minds.

It does not imply that people who believe that something is true and can't be persuaded that it is not are critical mind as well. I struggle to comprehend this sentence.

Most likely they aren't since knowing that something false isn't symmetric with knowing that something is true. Hmm... knowledge is justified true belief; whether the proposition known has a negation sign in it or not does not seem to make a big deal.

It is easier to disprove something than to prove that something is true. While the former is often possible the latter is often impossible. That's why the science progresses only by disproving things, then known as prejudices. Well, if you disprove something, in doing so you prove its negation; and if you prove something, in doing so you disprove its negation. So, on the contrary, proof and disproof are equally hard - or equally easy, depending on how one wants to look at things. (Now, if one wants to talk about on which side of a quantifier the negation sign is found, that can make a much bigger difference... but that is not what this essay is saying.) --(((Zack Martin)))^™ 07:52, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

It is all (possibly) so, but I'm not a right guy to write a book about it. I wanted just to define the phrase while finding it's not defined in RW, also realizing that true and untrue are ambigues things. Now I'd rather discuss my stuff about gravitation to discussion on which I invite everybody interested in rigorous thinking. JimJast (talk) 11:12, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Since no one seems to be interested in criticising my my stuff about gravitation I came back to rebuting the rebutal:

(1) The critical mind is a person who won't believe in somethng that she or he knows is untrue. It can be re-rebuted by pointing to the existence of people who do believe in something being untrue according to them: e.g. few people believe they will live after their death, yet many non critical minds believe that, or (at least officially) maintain such position. Are they all idiots or they really believe that for some socially conditioned circumstances? I estimate that this group is quite large (like over 50% of the Earth population. Even if they are idiots it doesn't rebut my definition since idiots are also people.

(2) Apparenly such people make only 5% of general population. [rebutal: A very strange claim. As I have demonstrated above, using this definition, very near to 100% of the population are critical minds]. You didn't since it hangs on your assumption of what people should think, according to you, and not what thaty actually think. I say that even if they are idiots thay are still people so they have to be considered within my classification.

(3 and the rest) After agreeing that real stupid people exist, and still they have to be included in statistics, we don't need to continue this re-rebutal. JimJast (talk) 11:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

It can be re-rebuted by pointing to the existence of people who do believe in something being untrue according to them - hmm... a quite interesting claim, what are your examples? few people believe they will live after their death, yet many non critical minds believe that, or (at least officially) maintain such position Um, quite a lot of people believe that. Taking a global view, I might even suggest the majority of people believe in a life after death. How is that an example of people who do believe in something being untrue according to them? They believe in it; it may or may not be untrue, but it certainly isn't untrue according to them.

Are they all idiots. No, I don't think they are. I believe in a life after death, yet I don't think I'm an idiot. or they really believe that for some socially conditioned circumstances? I don't think my belief that there exists a life after death is any more or less socially conditioned than your belief that there isn't one. Show me evidence otherwise.

I estimate that this group is quite large (like over 50% of the Earth population. What group? The group that believes in a life after death? Yes, that is probably more than half the world's present population. The group that believes due to socially conditioned circumstances? Well, I'd argue that group is 100% of the world's population - everyone's beliefs are socially conditioned, both mine and yours. But, even though are beliefs are socially conditioned, it is not impossible for them to reach to a truth beyond their social conditioning.

You didn't since it hangs on your assumption of what people should think, according to you What do I assume people think? That they don't think blatant contradictions? I think that's a quite reasonable assumption - are you disagreeing with me on it? Certainly, people might believe some subtle contradictions (i.e. believe two beliefs which are contradictory, but don't appear so at first), or believe some apparent contradictions (i.e. believe two beliefs that aren't contradictory, but do appear so at first). But I disagree anyone would believe blatant obvious contradictions, humans just don't do that. It seems to me to be a reasonable assumption about human nature; do you have evidence it is false?

and not what thaty actually think. What do they actually think then?

I say that even if they are idiots thay are still people so they have to be considered within my classification. ... After agreeing that real stupid people exist, and still they have to be included in statistics, we don't need to continue this re-rebutal. -- what are you even saying? I agree that some people of low intelligence exist, no doubt; but I doubt even any severely mentally retarted people believe obvious (as opposed to subtle or apparent) contradictions. But, as I understand it, your definition of uncritical mind is implying they do. Which indicates your definition is trivial and hence useless. --(((Zack Martin)))^™ 11:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Contradiction is the word that we should apply here so (accidentally) I picked up a wrong example since it is not a contradiction for you. I believe that death and life are things contradicting each other. So I should use "not believeing in two contradictig things at the same time" as definition of "critical mind" since this was what I meant. Thanks for clarifying this for me. I shouldn't use the example I did which might trigger your next rebutal. You believe that you can live after death and I don't so according to my definition you are not a "critical mind" but you might be according to yours. It implies a bad definition (or at least relative) while with "contradictory" in it, it maight be OK. Is it? JimJast (talk) 14:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I wanted to apply this definition to authors of "Gravitation" by Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler, who wrote a book on gravitation modifying Einstein's theory of gravitation apparently not realizing that their modification of Einstein's theory violates the principle of conservation of energy. Which so far neither physics nor tensor algebra allow (spacetime can't be curved since then all the known conservation laws get violated which corresponds in math to creation of energy and momentum from nothing in physics). It may be done only in "creationist math or physics" not in the real world though which is controlled by the "real world math and physics" (at least there is no known contradictions with such view: as far as we know the conservation of 4-momentum is conformed in many experiments). The first Einstein's version of his theory from 1917 was simlar (though without creation of energy from nothing since "Einstein's universe" was stationaty, not expanding, and it's maybe why Einstein has overlooked this problem that became important only when various hypotheses of expanding space turned up in cosmology). Einstein corrected the problem in 1950 while those gentlemen wrote their book in 1973 disregarding Einstein's correction (not even mentioning it in their index containing other Einstein's publications). This way we have two theories of gravitation, Einstein's with stationary universe and non symmetric matric tensor, not vaiolating the principle of conservation of energy, and another by the "gang of three", with symmetric metric tensor that violates the principle of conservation of energy, which is assuming that perpetual motion machines, that produce energy from nothing are, possible in the real world. If opinion of Feynman means something it is here. Particular attention should be turned to item (4). JimJast (talk) 22:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Reformulation of the first sentence

The first sentence instead of

"The critical mind is a person who won't believe in somethng that she or he knows is untrue" now reads

"The critical mind is a person who won't believe in somethng that contradicts other beliefs of this person".

Since it is practically impossible to be sure of any non trivial truth, my previous sentence covered this fact too but making it "contradicting beliefs" seem to be a lot clearer and much less ambigues. Thanks --Maratrean. JimJast (talk) 15:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)