There is a friend of mine who’s mind I reserve for the utmost respect, who has recently written a blog which sparks so much thought. I have asked him if I can repost here for my audience also, which he has let me do so kindly. The following post is entitled “The Close-Mindedness of Open-Mindedness” by Paul Goodsell

I constantly get accursed of being close-minded. Usually this is because my views differ from theirs. But what is it to be open-minded? Surely there is a limit to what you ought to let in. If not, how would one determine truth and falsity? To determine truth and falsity one generally employs logic or evidence. Many of the ?open-minded? concepts that go around do not employ either of these.

The people that accuse me of being close-minded generally believe in pseudo-scientific and supernatural concepts. Because I don?t believe in such concepts, they tell me to become more open-minded. As QualiaSoup puts it, this is ?typically based on highly flawed thinking and [an] inaccurate understanding of open-mindedness?. Because I don?t believe the ideas they believe in, I somehow become unwilling to consider new ideas. And the willingness to consider new ideas is to be ?open-minded?.

Either persuasion runs the risk of being close-minded. I can be scientific and not open up enough to new ideas. Or I could be unscientific and not open up enough to new ideas. This is why a line must be drawn. Otherwise it all remains unclear.

I?ll refer to ghosts again, as I did a few blogs ago. A few years ago I had the house to myself as my parents were on holiday. In their bedroom there was a touch-lamp. The first day I was alone, I was certain that the lamp wasn?t on. If it had been, I would have noticed it as I walked past the bedroom regularly, and I would have surely turned it off. The following day, however, I noticed that it was on. Nobody was in the house to turn it on. What could it have been?

I could have concluded, quickly, that it was ghost. But that would be dismissing all other possibilities. What I did consider was that the temperatures in Adelaide had soared to the mid-40s on this particular day. That absolutely had the ability to cause the touch-lamp to malfunction. Electronics and heat are notorious for interacting. Here, what seems more plausible, a real-world, material explanation, or one that appeals to the supernatural? Moving on.

These people I come across commonly use the following approach. They claim certain experiences ?cannot be explained?. This is flawed. By not being able to explain an experience, in no way strengthens the case for the supernatural. All it suggests is that your experience, and it?s usually a personal experience, cannot be explained. To say, X cannot be Y therefore X is Z, is a fallacy.

QualiaSoup argues that ?trying to suggest that a lack of explanation is evidence that supernatural powers are at work is actually a contradiction?. He says, in effect it?s really saying that ?I can?t explain something, therefore I can explain it?. This is unsound. Even if you have no appreciation of science or logic, how could you justify such a claim? X is merely Y until it can be proved that it is Z.

Going back to my ghost example. If I were to tell that to a supernatural-inclined friend, which I have before, they are likely to come back to the open-mindedness suggestion. However, they have no independent access to the events described and can?t investigate details that I may have missed out.

Here is another personal example. A colleague of mine, let?s call her Sue, explained to me that her friend Mary?s daughter was killed in a car accident. After the accident, though Mary wasn?t yet aware of the news, she received a phone call from her daughter explaining that there had been an accident but the passenger was fine. Emergency crews said that she had died on impact and that no such call was evident in the call log on her phone. Sue came to me, quite confident with this account, and said ?Try to explain that?. I can?t explain it, but I have no independent access to the events described and can?t investigate details that may have been missed / left out. This merely means that I cannot explain it, and doesn?t grant a free kick to the supernaturalists.

I expect that if I made a far-fetched claim, say, that I had been on the moon last night whilst you were sleeping, that you would be skecptical of it. I?d expect you to ask for evidence. Again, to quote QualiaSoup, the thought that ?[r]equiring evidence makes you closed-minded [is a] fallacy.?. If you disagree with this claim, then you ought to accept my claim that I was on the moon last night. If you choose not to accept either, you?re illogical whether you agree with it or not. Perhaps you use a different methodology, but why would you accept something unconditionally? If you think about that, and agree, you?re using logic.

If I say I don?t believe in X therefore X mustn?t be true, I am failing logically. For me to make such a claim, I must present reasons why it mustn?t be true. I could leave it just as that, but why should you be convinced? I haven?t offered anything to convince you other than an empty claim. All conclusion; no premises.

These people that call me close-minded make contradictory, self-serving claims. One believes in a particular God, but not others. Another doesn?t believe in God, but believes in angels. Another doesn?t believe in Gods or angels, but believes in ghosts. How do they go about arguing with those that believe in things that they do not? Do they pull the ?close-minded? trick out of the hat, each and every time? They only support skepticism on things that they are skeptical about. To them, open-mindedness means agreeing with them.

Imagine if the common ?open-mindedness? approach was played out by a judge in a court of law. The judge is presented with two accounts and a pile of evidence. The evidence supports only one account, and the other account is weak. What is she to do? What if she wants to be open-minded in her ruling. Perhaps she will dismiss the evidence based on an ?open-mind?. ?I don?t think it?s fair to the other persons claim that I accept your evidence and testimony and not theirs?? Imagine if that?s how the legal system worked? Ignoring evidence as it might upset the other, because you don?t care for evidence perhaps. And this is where I shall go on a tangent.

A friend of mine recently told me that they don?t care for science. ?It hasn?t cured the common cold therefore isn?t to be trusted?. I suspect that because science treads on their feet elsewhere, they feel they shouldn?t endorse it at all. They feel that?s a more rational approach. How do they explain flying at 36,000 feet in a Boeing 737 then? Let?s say they dismiss science because they believe in a divine being. And they dismiss it totally to preserve this divine being. Then, the logical connection I would make is that they believe this divine being is responsible for the aircraft being able to do what it does. Or some alternative perhaps. But I digress?

What I find in many of my encounters is that the other party asks that I demand less evidence to support their claim. I, a scientific person, require persuasive evidence. And this is often stoned down as being ?unreasonable?. I am unreasonable for asking for evidence. How would you like it if I called you ?unreasonable? for asking for evidence about my moon trip? If I stated that you were unreasonable, wouldn?t you become a bit suspicious?

Believing in more spooky things than the next person is not necessarily a sign of supreme open-mindedness, rather, supreme gullibility.

To close, I shall quote QualiaSoup for a final time. ?Before presuming to advice others to be more 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 [those people you call close-minded]? If you open your mind too much chances are you?ll let in am awful lot of junk.

I dedicate this post to Steve, David and Matthew and would like to thank QualiaSoup for opening my mind on the topic of open-mindedness.

The original post can be found on his blog, The Nihilist, here