Open - Mindedness

It seems to be an extremely common experience among people who don't believe in certain non-scientific concepts to be told by others who do to be more open-minded. This advice is typically based on highly flawed thinking including an inaccurate understanding of what open-mindedness is. In fact, being open-minded simply means being willing to consider new ideas. Science promotes and thrives on open-mindedness because the advancement of our understanding about the reality in which we exist depends upon our willingness to consider new ideas. Indeed, scientific discovery often requires entirely new ways of thinking. However, not only does believing in certain non-scientific concepts not automatically make you open-minded it can often lead you to be the complete opposite. A neighbour of mine once noticed a moving lampshade in my front room and said it was a ghost. When I told him it wasn't he said, "You've got the evidence in front of you" and said I was stubbornly closed-minded and had no curiosity. When he'd finished his little outburst I reached down and switched off the small fan heater underneath the lamp to stop its currents of warm air from moving the shade. It was actually my neighbour who'd had no curiosity in this situation. He'd leapt to an immediate conclusion and dismissed all alternatives. When you label an event 'supernatural' just because it has no explanation that's obvious to you you'll inevitably misinterpret evidence and make invalid causal connections. You'll eliminate whole realms of alternative explanation before it's even clear which explanations might be appropriate and that's the very definition of closed-mindedness. People who tell others to be more open-minded about so-called 'supernatural' concepts often accompany this advice with one or more personal anecdotes they claim can't be explained. This is another flawed approach. Even if your experience can't be explained that in no way strengthens the case for any supernatural concept. All it shows is that your experience can't be explained. Trying to suggest that a lack of explanation is evidence that supernatural powers are at work is actually a contradiction. In effect what it's saying is: "I can't explain something, therefore I can explain it." The unexplained is just that: unexplained. Furthermore, although it's quite reasonable to describe an experience and say you can't explain it telling your audience they can't explain it is senseless because your audience has no independent access to the events you describe nor any way of investigating which details you may have missed or edited out. If my neighbour had told other people they had to accept his ghost story because they couldn't explain the moving lampshade how would anyone be able to agree or disagree without knowing anything about the fan heater? Expecting others just to take your word that you've had a brush with the supernatural is simply unrealistic. Even if I saw someone disappear right in front of me I'd recognize how unreasonable it would be to expect a complete stranger just to believe me without corroborating evidence however personally frustrating that might feel. Someone once tried to suggest to me that scientists who ask for evidence before accepting claims are as closed-minded as witch doctors. The idea that requiring evidence makes you closed-minded is a fallacy. A willingness to consider new ideas doesn't commit you to accepting them unconditionally. If someone you love was lying injured and unconscious and a complete stranger told you she had some magic powder that would cause instant healing if poured into the wounds would you just accept this stranger's claim? Would it be closed-minded not to let her pour a substance you know nothing about into the open wounds of someone you love? We're all sceptical about SOME things. If Alfie isn't sceptical about the existence of ghosts and Beth is it may be that Beth's experience of other people's flawed evidence and logic has given her strong reasons to be sceptical. Now, if Alfie develops a valid operational definition for what ghosts are supposed to be and produces valid evidence Beth might one day re-evaluate and accept their existence. But it's important to remember that unless Beth says something like, "Ghosts do not exist" she's made no factual claim requiring justification or indicating a closed mind. I've watched a number of people work themselves up into a froth about me having a closed mind on some paranormal issue only to realize, when they start listening carefully that I don't actually hold the views they've rashly attributed to me. For example, when I say "I don't believe X" I've not said, "It can't be true". All I've said is, "I've not yet been presented with persuasive evidence for X". Now, if someone describes an entity to me that's logically impossible then in those specific cases, I might well say, "X cannot be true" and I'll back up my statement. But it's a classic debating trick to exaggerate and therefore misrepresent another person's position and when you treat someone's statement of non-belief as an assertion that something 'cannot be true' this is exactly what you're doing. If you have difficulty accepting that other people don't share your beliefs then that's unfortunate for you, because there's a lot of difference out there. But if knowing that someone's beliefs differ from yours causes you to lose a sense of perspective when talking to them so that as soon as you hear certain trigger words you start grafting inaccurately assumed attitudes onto them you're no longer communicating. You're merely rehearsing your own prejudices. And that's truly closed-minded In the course of my life I've been told to be more open-minded by people who believe in a god but not reincarnation and people who believe in reincarnation but not gods. Both groups seem quite happy for others to express scepticism when they do but not when they don't. For these people, open-mindedness seems to mean 'agreeing with me'. Then there are others whose idea of open-mindedness is accepting the unreliable testimony of any random person with a spooky story. These people are often also fiercely sceptical of science certain comments can quickly reveal their poor understanding of what it is and this results in two supreme ironies: One is that they're guilty of exactly the same sceptical attitude they criticise in other people. The other is that what they're reserving their scepticism for is a domain that emphasizes scepticism. In other words, they're sceptical of scepticism. Again, open-mindedness isn't about believing things so believing in more paranormal things than the next person doesn't make you more open-minded though it can be a sign that you're more gullible and despite what some people would have us believe it's not a virtue to be easily persuaded by people. Those who say it is, and that requiring evidence is closed-minded clearly wouldn't survive one day in a court of law. After all, what does the person with that attitude do in any situation where there's more than one version of events? And is it closed-minded to require evidence of someone's guilt before locking them up? These attitudes don't stand up for a moment in the real world. It would be absurd to suggest we need evidence for everything we're told. When a friend tells us about their day at work we don't ask them to back up what they say And we don't stop enjoying films and stories just because they contain incredible events. But when someone's trying to persuade us to accept something as fact or take some sort of risk demanding valid evidence helps us distinguish true claims from false ones, and that's an invaluable ability in a world where believing false claims can seriously damage your wealth and your health. Critical thinking is not incompatible with open-mindedness. On the contrary, it empowers an open mind. Even though demanding valid evidence may lead you occasionally to reject ideas that are poorly supported but nonetheless valid if and when evidence accumulates for those ideas an open mind will allow you to re-consider them and possibly dislodge false ideas you'd previously accepted as true. This approach is promoted by science. By contrast, when you have an open mind but demand little or no evidence before accepting things you leave your understanding of reality much more up to chance. Even worse, if you've accepted false ideas uncritically and close your mind to anything that contradicts them you won't recognise true ideas even when the evidence is overwhelming and you'll sabotage your own capacity for learning. If you believe in pseudoscientific and supernatural concepts that's your privilege. If you want to put forward your personal reasons for believing in them understanding that whoever's listening may have questions or find flaws in your arguments, that's fine. But if you're in the habit of targeting individuals you've never met and suggesting they're in some way deficient just because they don't believe in these concepts; if you reject conflicting evidence and counter-arguments without consideration but demand that others accept your arguments and what you regard as evidence uncritically not only is that closed-minded it's controlling, arrogant and presumptuous in the extreme. More importantly, when you're trying to make it seem unreasonable for someone to want evidence before changing a significant attitude or take a significant risk the mere fact that your claim requires a suspension of critical thinking should indicate it's not the other person that needs to demand less evidence but you that needs to demand more. Before presuming to advise others to be open-minded think about some of the widely accepted ideas you dismiss without consideration. You might need the advice you're dispensing far more than other people. Remember too that an open mind that demands little or no evidence for ideas before accepting them will let in an awful lot of rubbish.