Mediocre Minds

Robert Howard Kroepel
Copyright © 2006
Laekside Studios
20 South Shore Road
New Durham, New Hampshire USA 03855

Introduction
Identifying Great Minds
Basic Philosophy
If P, Then Q Logical Arguments
Philosophy
Intelligence
The Three Stages of a Theory
The Characteristics of Great Scientists
The Opposition to Great minds by Mediocre Minds
Religionist Fundie Tactics
Identifying Mediocre Minds

Introduction


In every field of human endeavor there is a constant struggle between or among individuals for power and control of other individuals: he who has the power has the control--when you have the power you have the control.

Great minds create new ideas and theories and mediocre minds struggle mightily to challenge and refute those ideas and theories and thereby gain power over and therefore control of great minds.

Identifying Great Minds


Great minds are easily identified (A) by their use of operational definitions for the important concepts and principles and techniques they use in developing and presenting their new ideas and theories and (B) by their use of If P, Then Q Logical Arguments to present premises which are verifiable/falsifiable/verified directly or indirectly by physical evidence which are relevant to and which justify conclusions which are valid because they are relevant to the premises and true because the premises are verified directly or indirectly by physical evidence.

Basic Philosophy


Concept = Mental representation/idea of a person, an organism, or an object.
Principle = Mental representation/idea of an event--a relationship between or among objects.

Object = A group or set or system of elementary particles, subatomic particles, atoms, molecules, etc. which form a unity which retains its identity for a longer duration in time than relevant events. [NOTE: People and organisms are technically objects.]

Examples of Objects: A woman named Jane, a ball, and a man named Dick.

Event = A relationship between or among objects, especially a causal relationship in which objects/events who/which are causes and who/which cause/create the effects of (A) changes in the inertial states (motions) and inertial reference frames of pre-existing objects or (B) new objects/events.

Causality = Causes causing effects = objects/events who/which are causes and who/which cause/create the effects of (A) changes in the inertial states (being either at rest or in motion) and inertial reference frames (the condition of traveling at a specific velocity) of pre-existing objects or (B) new objects/events.

Example of an Event: The woman named Jane throws the ball to the man named Dick; Jane is the person who is the cause of the effect of the ball traveling through the air to the man named Dick; the relationship among Jane, the ball and Dick is a causal relationship.

Technique = Application of a principle to solve a problem.

Problem = Learning/determining how to achieve a desire or avoid a fear.

Desire = Wanting an object/event.

Example of a Desire: Jane wants the event of getting the ball to Dick.

Fear = Not-wanting an object/event.

Example of a Fear: Jane does not want to not the event of not getting the ball to Dick.

Examples of Techniques: Jane can solve the problem of achieving the desire to get the ball to Dick (1) by the technique of throwing the ball to Dick or (2) by the technique of (A) giving the ball to her dog, Spot, (B) commanding Spot to take the ball to Dick, and (C) hoping Spot will excecute the command and therefore will take the ball to Dick.

Operational definitions define terms and phrases by describing or measuring objects/events who/which are comprised of matter and energy and who/which are therefore actual/real in contrast to being the content of ideas and who/which are relevant to the terms/phrases being defined.

By operational definitions, abstract concepts/principles can be made concrete by descriptions of actual/real objects/events comprised of matter/energy who/which are relevant to the terms/phrases being defined.

Children often use operational definitions of the terms/phrases they use for the concepts/principles/techniques they use.

Example: Love [term being defined operationally] is when someone says they like you and they do nice things for you and with you [description of the objects/events relevant to the term being defined operationally].

Knowledge = A set of true/accurate concepts/principles and practical techniques.

True Concept = Concept which is an accurate mental representation of a person/organism/object.
False Concept = Concept which is an inaccurate mental representation of a person/organism/object.
True Principle = Principle which is an accurate mental representation of an event.
False Principle = Principle which is an inaccurate mental representation of an event.
Practical Technique = Effective/workable application of a principle.
Impractical Technique = Ineffective/unworkable application of a principle.

If P, then Q Logical Arguments


If P, then Q logical arguments consist of two premises and a conclusion.

Premise #1: If P, then Q.
Premise #2: P.
Conclusion: Q.

If P, Then Q logical arguments function as descriptions of causality: The P functions as a set of conditions/causes of the Q consequence(s)/effect(s).

Example:

Premise #1: If (P/Conditions/Causes) Jane throws this ball with this sufficient force in the direction of Dick, then (Q/Consequence/Effect) Dick will get the ball.
Premise #2: (P/Conditions/Causes) Jane throws this ball with this sufficient force in the direction of Dick.
Conclusion: (Q/Consequence/Effect) Dick gets the ball.

If P, Then Q logical arguments are causal predictions, predictions of causality, wherein if the P/Conditions/Causes are present then those P/Conditions/Causes are predicted to cause the Q/Consequence(s)/Effect(s).

Logical arguments are valid if their premises are relevant to their conclusions, and, in reverse, if their conclusions are relevant to their premises; logical arguments are true if their premises are verifiable/falsfiable/verified directly or indirectly by physical evidence or the conclusions of other logical arguments.

Philosophy


Philosophy, literally, from Greek "philo" = love and "sophy" = knowledge, the "love of knowledge," is the study of the concepts (mental representations/ideas of objects), principles (mental representations/ideas of events--causal relationships between/among objects) and techniques (applications of principles to solve problems inre achieving desires--wanting objects and events--and avoiding fears--not-wanting objects/events) for creating operational definitions of, and logical arguments which verify the accuracy of, an individual's or organization's set of concepts  and principles and the practicality of an individual's or organization's techniques (applications of principles to solve problems inre achieving desires and avoiding fears).

Philosophy is the study and development of the accurate concepts and principles and practical techniques necessary for the creation of an individual's or organization's philosophy or set of concepts, principles and techniques.

A philosophy is a set of concepts, principles and techniques.

To philosophize is to create concepts, principles and techniques which can be used for solving problems--achieving desires and avoiding fears.

The value of philosophy is the study and development of the accurate concepts and principles and practical techniques which are the standards and guidelines for the development of other accurate concepts, principles and techniques.


1. Generic Philosophy: The generic concepts and principles and the generic techniques which function as standards and guidelines for the development of an individual's or organization's philosophy or set of specific concepts, principles and techniques--concepts, principles and techniques which are generic to and therefore relevant to any individual's or organization's philosophy or set of specific concepts, principles and techniques.
[Generic = Applicable to any philosophy; Specific = An individual's or organization's set of concepts, principles and techniques]
2. Specific Philosophy: An individual's or organization's philosophy or set of specific concepts, principles and techniques--concepts, principles which are unique to and therefore relevant to a specific individual or organization.

Intelligence


Intelligence is using concepts and principles and techniques for solving problems--achieving desires for objects/events and avoiding fears of objects/events.

The hallmark of intelligence is using a practical technique for using known concepts/principles for solving problems; inre intelligence, it is not what you know but how you use what you know to solve problems that counts.

The Three Stages of a Theory


William James:

I fully expect to see the pragmatist view of truth run through the classic stages of a theory's career. First, you know, a new theory is attacked as absurd; then it is admitted to be true, but obvious and insignificant; finally it is seen to be so important that its adversaries claim that they themselves discovered it.

[William James: Pragmatism: A New Name For Some Old Ways of Thinking; Lecture 6, paragraph 2]

The Characteristics of Great Scientists


Marcelo Gleiser
The Dancing Universe
Plume, Published by The Penguin Group, Peguin Putnam, Inc., 375 Hudson Street, New York, NY10014, USA 1998
p. 193

[One] of the most important characteristics of great scientists is freedom of thought. This independence brings with it a flexibility that allows them, with help from that elusive trait called genius, to find new and unexpected links where others see only dead ends. But finding new links is not enough; to chart new territory, scientists must also have the courage to let go of old, established notions. They must believe in their ideas.

The Opposition to Great Minds by Mediocre Minds


Albert Einstein:

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds. The mediocre mind is incapable of understanding the man who refuses to bow blindly to conventional prejudices and chooses instead to express his opinions courageously and honestly."

--letter to Morris Raphael Cohen, professor emeritus of philosophy at the College of the City of New York, defending the controversial appointment of Bertrand Russell to a teaching position, March 19, 1940.

Religionist Fundie Tactics


Religionists are people whose personal philosophies include a belief in the existence of evidence of the existence of gods.

Religionist fundies are people who attempt to defend the indefensible--to defend the unverified principle that physical evidence exists which prove gods exist. [NOTE: Defending the indefensible is a G. Gordon Liddy phrase.]

Gods can be conceived as beings comprised of matter/energy of some kind--including kinds which have not been observed or identified by humans--who/which have more knowledge and capablities for using that knowledge than mankind.

The only proof of the existence of gods can be the gods themselves--in some form of matter/energy mankind can detect/perceive--performing stunts which prove they have more knowledge and capabilities for using that knowledge than mankind.

Without the gods themselves as proof of the existence of gods, religionist fundies attempt various logical arguments consisting of premise and conclusions which are intended and thereby supposed to prove the existence of gods but which typically suffer from the fallacy of the begged question--the question which is implied and begging for an answer: Is this premise true? or Is this premise verifiable/falsifiable/verified by physical evidence?

Example: The First Cause Logical Argument for the Existence of Gods.

Premise #1: If (P/Conditions/Causes) all effects have causes, then (Q/Consequence/Effect) there must be a first cause.
Premise #2: (P/Conditions/Causes) All effects have causes.
Conclusion #1: (Q/Consequence/Effect) There is a first cause.

Premise #3: If (P/Conditions/Causes--from Conclusion #1) there is a first cause, then (Q/Consequence/Effect) that first cause has to be a god.
Premise #4: (P/Conditions/Causes--from Conclusion #1) There is a first cause.
Conclusion #2: (Q/Consequence/Effect) The first cause is a god.

Premise #5: If (P/Conditions/Causes--from Conclusion #2) the first cause is a god, then (Q/Consequence/Effect) gods exist.
Premise #6: (P/Conditions/Causes--from Conclusion #2) The first cause is a god.
Conclusion #3: (Q/Consequence/Effect) Gods exist.

Begged Question inre Premise #1: Is This premise true: Are some effects without causes?

Physical Evidence: Matter and energy are causes of effects; m/e cannot be destroyed but only changed in form: m<->e, from the Law of the Conservation of Matter and the Law of the Conservation of Energy and Einstein's m = e/c2 and e = mc2; therefore m/e is without cause, and is the source of causality--causes causing effects: m/e is indestructible and eternal/infinite in duration/existence in time and space.

Begged Answer inre Premise #1: Because (P/Conditions/Causes) some effects--m/e--are without cause, then (Q/Consequence/Effect) there not need be a first cause.

Because some effects are without cause and therefore there not need be a first cause, the remaining premises of the logical argument(s) are falsified and their conclusions are thereby falsified/unverified by their premises.

Religionist fundies use tactics which include ...

1. denial;
2. evasion;
3. obfuscation;
4. attack.

Religionist Fundie Tactics:

1. Deny!
2. Evade!
3. Obfuscate!
4. Attack!

Fundies will deny the Law of Conservation of Matter and the Law of the Conservation of Energy prove that m/e is indestructible and therefore eternal/infinite in duration/existence in time and space and therefore without cause (also without a beginning or creation).

Fundies will evade by asking Who/What created matter and energy? without admitting that the physical evidence--the Law of the Conservation of Matter and the Law of the Conservation of Energy--proves that m/e is indestructible and therefore eternal/infinite in duration/existence in time and space and therefore without a cause (also without a beginning or creation).

If asked Who/What created/caused the gods? fundies will deny that gods could have been created/caused, will evade the question by claiming that there has to be a first cause and that first cause has to be a god--which is what they have been trying to prove and are now assuming to be proof which proves what they have been trying to prove, obfuscate the question by claiming that gods are beyond cause/creation--whatever that means, and will attack by claiming that the challenger has no right--whatever that means--to question whether or not gods could have been created/caused, that the challenger is a ____ (?) [fill in the blank] for not agreeing with them/for not understanding the simple and clear logic of their argument/etc.

Identifying Mediocre Minds


How can mediocre minds be detected and thereby identified?

Here is a proposed starter list of characteristics of mediocre minds:

1. Mediocre minds immediately dismiss a new idea as "crackpot" or "kook."
2. Mediocre minds do not bother to read completely the exposition of a new idea.
3. Mediocre minds do not bother to read and study how the premises of a new idea might be verifiable/falsifiable/verified directly or indirectly by physical evidence and thereby are relevent to the conclusion that is the new idea.
4. Mediocre minds incessantly quote pre-existing mantras that supposedly refute the new idea regardless of whether or not the new idea has verifiable/falsifiable/verified premises for its conclusion and therefore might require either modifying or eliminating the pre-existing mantras.
5. Mediocre minds cite experiments which confirm the pre-existing mantras regardless of whether or not the new idea has predictions which can be confirmed by actual experiments and which therefore challenge effectively the pre-existing mantras.
6. Mediocre minds refuse to believe that the theorist who offers the new idea has actually read books which supposedly justify the pre-existing mantras and has therefore actually studied the subject of the new idea.
7. Mediocre minds cite examples which support their contentions but which ignore the concepts and principles and premises and conclusion(s) presented in the new idea.
8. Mediocre minds never present operational definitions of the terms/phrases they use to challenge the premises of the conclusion which is the new idea. especially when asked to present operational definitions of the terms/phrases they use.
9. Mediocre minds conduct ad hominem attacks against the theorist who presents a new idea.
10. Mediocre minds fail to challenge the conclusion which is a new idea by challenging--proving false, by physical evidence--the premises which are relevant to and justification for the conclusion.
11. Mediocre minds fail to demonstrate that they understand the basic rules of logical arguments, especially the If (P/Conditions/Causes), Then (Q/Consequence/Effect) Logical Argument, which is the logical basis of scientific inquiry, and which presents a new idea as a conclusion as a prediction of consequences/effects which can be confirmed when the conditions/causes are present/presented in an experiment.
12. Mediocre minds challenge the setups of gedankenexperiments--German: thought experiments, mind experiments--with endless mantra quotings which are irrelevant to the premises and conclusions generated by the gendankenexperiments when the setups for gedankenexperiments by their nature are granted allowances for the concepts/principles/techniques inre their P/Conditions/Causes and Q/Consequences/Effects.
13. Mediocre minds too often do not present operational definitions of the important terms/phrases they use, and/or are being used, in a discussion; and if mediocre minds attempt to present operational definitions of important terms/phrases, too often those definitions are either pseudo-operational definitions or otherwise are inadequate and therefore ineffective.
14. Mediocre minds too often use religionist fundie deny/evade/obfuscate/attack tactics, therefore mediocre minds often can be identified by their use of religionist fundie tactics.

When an individual is observed to fit several if not most if not all of the proposed characteristics of mediocre minds, then observers are justified in concluding the individuals has/is a mediocre mind.

Where we are all good for some purpose, or otherwise are good for some people, mediocre minds in specific endeavors may be superior minds in other endeavors.