Open mindedness.

[Admin]

Here's a neat little video on open mindedness. The only criticism I would make is that he makes the all too common mistake of confusing being sceptical with skepticism.

T69TOuqaqXI

And here's my little rant on the same incredibly annoying issue: http://www.ukskeptics.com/article.php?dir=articles&article=the_open_mind.php

It's amazing just how many people think that believing absolutely anything means they have an open mind!

[bobdezon]

Bite sized form of what we have been trying unsuccessfully for years to explain to the occiasional visitor/troll. Excellent video John, I shall be swooping that now and using it as a reply for that 1,000,001 explanation I just dont want to retype. O0

[Mulder]

It's a bit long. I wonder how many people would watch it all, given that some would take it as personal criticism? It might be better split into individual simple points.

[Antipositor]

It's amazing just how many people think that believing absolutely anything means they have an open mind!
I agree that "believing in" something does not constitute an open mind. Having a conclusion one way or the other seems to be what closes it. Being "open" seems to indicate that a conclusion has not been fully formed on the given question.

If a skeptic declares that it's a waste of time to go out to the back yard to see the Bigfoot you captured, because "they don't exist" He may be correct, but he's not being open-minded enough to have his conclusion either disproved or validated. After all, a truth can never be disproved, and a fallacy can never be proved, so there's no harm in trying (if you can spare a bit of your precious time).

[dalriada]

I can't agree that "believing in" something constitutes an open mind. Having a conclusion one way or the other seems to be what closes it..


I think the key point in John Jacksons post was not "believing in" something but [and I quote] "believing absolutely anything "

Pay attention oo7!

>:D

[Pebble]

I agree that "believing in" something does not constitute an open mind. Having a conclusion one way or the other seems to be what closes it. Being "open" seems to indicate that a conclusion has not been fully formed on the given question.


Ergo - failing to make decisions is the hallmark of an open mind?

[ZERO]

I agree that "believing in" something does not constitute an open mind. Having a conclusion one way or the other seems to be what closes it. Being "open" seems to indicate that a conclusion has not been fully formed on the given question.
No, being open minded means you are willing to examine new evidence and be prepared to change your opinion if the evidence warrants it.
Having an open mind does not mean you have to sit permanently on the fence.


If a skeptic declares that it's a waste of time to go out to the back yard to see the Bigfoot you captured, because "they don't exist" He may be correct, but he's not being open-minded enough to have his conclusion either disproved or validated. After all, a truth can never be disproved, and a fallacy can never be proved, so there's no harm in trying (if you can spare a bit of your precious time).If a person refuses to look at evidence then that person is not a skeptic.

[Antipositor]

No, being open minded means you are willing to examine new evidence and be prepared to change your opinion if the evidence warrants it.
I agree with that, perhaps I wasn't clear enough.


Having an open mind does not mean you have to sit permanently on the fence.
Correct, but the more time we spend on that fence, the better informed our conclusions are apt to be.


If a person refuses to look at evidence then that person is not a skeptic.
I wish I had a penny for every time I heard a skeptic says it's not worth their time to investigate claims of things which they have already decided can not be true.

[SorryImPsychic]

If a skeptic declares that it's a waste of time to go out to the back yard to see the Bigfoot you captured, because "they don't exist" He may be correct, but he's not being open-minded enough to have his conclusion either disproved or validated.

In my experience with UK-Skeptics it feels as if I may as well have been saying:

SIP: "Hey come and see the Bigfoot I captured!".

RANDOM SKEPTIC: "They don't exist" (read: idiot, troll, woo, first and final warning)

DrS: "And why do you think this is Bigfoot? (Bearing in mind I know nothing about Bigfeet) Would others believe it is Bigfoot? Why would or wouldn't they believe it was Bigfoot?"

MULDER: "I'd need more evidence that Bigfoot exists before I venture out into the backyard."

And Pebble. Formidable Pebble!:

PEBBLE:(from the comfort of his couch*) Going through some of your photographs of Bigfoot alone significantly detracts from its credibility. But the question of the existence of Bigfoot has been conclusively settled - it does not exist. All sightings of Bigfoot have been a result of a priori* expectations."

So of all the members I've engaged with, DrS is the only one who has "come out into the backyard" so to speak. Is this the essence of "open mindedness? Not quite but a good start.

*Galen Strawson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galen_Strawson) wrote that an a priori argument is one of which "you can see that it is true (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True) just lying on your couch. You don't have to get up off your couch and go outside and examine the way things are in the physical world. You don't have to do any science."[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_priori_and_a_posteriori_%28philosophy%29#cite_no te-0)

[garhol]

The open mindedness argument is one of my personal favourites.
I get hit with that card quite often when dealing with my peer group.

The conversation is usually a variation on the following:

A: EFT works by unblocking perturbations in the thought field
Me: I don't think that's really likely. It's based on accupuncture/accupressure which have been shown to be most likely placebo.
A: You need to have an open mind about these things.
Me: I am being open minded but you haven't given me any valid reason to believe your claims. You don't seem to be open minded enough to realise that you might be wrong.
A: I have evidence, I read about someone who was cured of (take you pick) after doing EFT when western medicine failed.
Me: That's not really evidence though, it's just a story that you heard. Is there any proof that it actually happened?
A: I gave you proof just now, you're assuming that it's not true.
Me: ...........

An prime example here on youtube. (I should know better by now)
Check youtube for "Emotional Freedom Techniques - EFT - Learn in 5 minutes" I'm not allowed to post links to external sites yet I'm afraid :(

[Croydon Bob]

(if you can spare a bit of your precious time).

Well that is a very important part of your claims.

I spent much of my time in the 1970s and into the 1980s looking at UFO and other paranormal claims. I don't bother now.


I wish I had a penny for every time I heard a skeptic says it's not worth their time to investigate claims of things which they have already decided can not be true.

Strawman again. I haven't decided that they CANNOT be true but it isn't worth my time investigating yet another "I've got video of a light in the sky", or "I saw a spaceship" story.

If we all followed your logic then we'd all be constantly investigating every claim of every scam artist and nutter. The aliens could land on the White House lawn and we wouldn't notice because we were so busy checking out the daily sightings of chinese lanterns because this time it might not be a chinese lantern it might be an alien spaceship that looks like a chinese lantern.

[Antipositor]

If we all followed your logic then we'd all be constantly investigating every claim of every scam artist and nutter. The aliens could land on the White House lawn and we wouldn't notice because we were so busy checking out the daily sightings of chinese lanterns because this time it might not be a chinese lantern it might be an alien spaceship that looks like a chinese lantern.
This is the biggest straw man of all, because I have said that we can choose to spend the time we want investigating claims; but the more time spent in uncertainty instead of pre-formed conclusions, the better informed those conclusions are apt to be.

[Croydon Bob]

This is the biggest straw man of all, because I have said that we can choose to spend the time we want investigating claims; but the more time spent in uncertainty instead of pre-formed conclusions, the better informed those conclusions are apt to be.

Oh yeah? What you said was:


I wish I had a penny for every time I heard a skeptic says it's not worth their time to investigate claims of things which they have already decided can not be true.

The attitude you have adopted over the last two days towards skeptics (who in some cases have spent many years or decades investigating paranormal claims) and their conclusions suggests that my argument was not a straw man argument at all, let alone "the biggest".

You appear to have already decided that we've prematurely made decisions and you attack us for it without waiting to hear what we actually think.

[Pebble]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFO6ZhUW38w

[DrS]

So of all the members I've engaged with, DrS is the only one who has "come out into the backyard" so to speak.
But only to see if I can work out why you think the bird table is a bigfoot! :tongue:

[SorryImPsychic]

But only to see if I can work out why you think the bird table is a bigfoot! :tongue:

Then you approach the issue with pre-conceived ideas, assumptions and bias. How do you know you will see a bird table instead of Bigfoot?

[Graham Lappin]

I know it's the old adage but I like what Dawkins said "I am open minded but not so open minded that my brains would fall out"

Whilst the Bigfoot analogy is interesting it is still reminiscent of fairies at the bottom of the garden and I am not sure I would really be going outside in the rain to have a look. I wonder however SorryImPsychic if you are not taking all this a little too personally. I know you are getting a bit of stick but that's the way it goes. I am at a scientific conference - not a particularly good one - but some of the presenters have been lambasted by their peers for coming out with stuff that just does not stack up. I have been on the receiving end on this forum more than once but that really is all part of it. Speaking personally, I don't agree with a lot of what you say but you have a right to say it.

[SorryImPsychic]

I am at a scientific conference - not a particularly good one - but some of the presenters have been lambasted by their peers for coming out with stuff that just does not stack up. I have been on the receiving end on this forum more than once but that really is all part of it. Speaking personally, I don't agree with a lot of what you say but you have a right to say it.


As the echo of the late Carl Segan's voice still reminds us "we do not know from where the truth will come". And we must be prepared to hear "unfomfortable" truths.

So what does "not stack up" really mean?

The fact that something does not stack up with contemporary theory or understanding is not in itself any indication of invalidation.

Science must evolve - it must always move on towards new understanding of reality. To resist this urge to change thinking is unscientific. It is behavior akin to religious dogmatism.

[DrS]

The fact that something does not stack up with contemporary theory or understanding is not in itself any indication of invalidation.

Yes it is! It is a strong indication of invalidation. What it is not is proof of invalidation. There is nothing wrong, or closed minded, about requiring robust evidence before a working hypothesis, which has been tested, retested, and found to be conherent, is considered for being overturned.

What you are confusing is open-mindedness and incredulity.

[Croydon Bob]

Science must evolve -

But you want it to "evolve" into fantasy and lies. That wouldn't be science. Science has to be based on facts, not on some rubbish that you read on the internet and wish were true.

Indeed, you have already said that you don't "believe" in evolution itself.


It is behavior akin to religious dogmatism.

Yes. That is exactly what your behaviour is. Never mind the truth, you believe in some nonsense therefore you'll keep repeating it even when shown to be wrong. You behave exactly like a Christian Fundy or a 9/11 Troofer.

[Antipositor]

In my experience with UK-Skeptics it feels as if I may as well have been saying:

SIP: "Hey come and see the Bigfoot I captured!".

RANDOM SKEPTIC: "They don't exist" (read: idiot, troll, woo, first and final warning)

DrS: "And why do you think this is Bigfoot? (Bearing in mind I know nothing about Bigfeet) Would others believe it is Bigfoot? Why would or wouldn't they believe it was Bigfoot?"

MULDER: "I'd need more evidence that Bigfoot exists before I venture out into the backyard."

And Pebble. Formidable Pebble!:

PEBBLE:(from the comfort of his couch*) Going through some of your photographs of Bigfoot alone significantly detracts from its credibility. But the question of the existence of Bigfoot has been conclusively settled - it does not exist. All sightings of Bigfoot have been a result of a priori* expectations."

So of all the members I've engaged with, DrS is the only one who has "come out into the backyard" so to speak. Is this the essence of "open mindedness? Not quite but a good start.

*Galen Strawson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galen_Strawson) wrote that an a priori argument is one of which "you can see that it is true (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True) just lying on your couch. You don't have to get up off your couch and go outside and examine the way things are in the physical world. You don't have to do any science."[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_priori_and_a_posteriori_%28philosophy%29#cite_no te-0)
I love it! "Armchair skepticism."

The similarities between this type of "skepticism" and religion seems to grow and grow.

Fascinating.

[Graham Lappin]

As the echo of the late Carl Segan's voice still reminds us "we do not know from where the truth will come". And we must be prepared to hear "unfomfortable" truths.

So what does "not stack up" really mean?

The fact that something does not stack up with contemporary theory or understanding is not in itself any indication of invalidation.

Science must evolve - it must always move on towards new understanding of reality. To resist this urge to change thinking is unscientific. It is behavior akin to religious dogmatism.

I think you are playing semantics and taking a bit of an extreme view at the same time. Stack-up (sorry, probably a bit of an Americanism) = inconsistent. It does not mean that what is inconsistent is wrong, it just means that it is inconsistent and demands further explanation. It is true that if "something does not stack up with contemporary theory or understanding is not in itself any indication of invalidation" - I was corrected on that on this very forum by Pebble only recently. However, if it consistently and continually does not stack up, then it is pretty likely that the proposition is wrong.

To say "Science must evolve - it must always move on towards new understanding of reality. To resist this urge to change thinking is unscientific. It is behavior akin to religious dogmatism"... is really not right at all. Science is self-correcting and evolves like no other discipline. It is at times a little conservative but never compare it to religious dogmatism.

[SorryImPsychic]

Science is self-correcting and evolves like no other discipline. It is at times a little conservative but never compare it to religious dogmatism.

We would hope this is the case. But historically it has been extremely difficult to challenge dominant theory of the day even if new theory is far superior in explaining phenomena.

[Cuddles]

We would hope this is the case. But historically it has been extremely difficult to challenge dominant theory of the day even if new theory is far superior in explaining phenomena.

Yes, it's such a shame that all those breakthroughs like electricity, relativity, quantum physics and so on were all completely ignored. Why, just imagine what the world might be liked if scientists had actually come up with some new ideas from time to time.::)

[Graham Lappin]

We would hope this is the case. But historically it has been extremely difficult to challenge dominant theory of the day even if new theory is far superior in explaining phenomena.

I am not sure that this is really true. There are some examples where the scientific wisdom was opposed to a new idea but over time, providing the new theory "stacked up" it did prevail, despite opposition from any individual scientists at the time. The Big Bang theory and Hoyle, would be just one example. The real rub in what you are saying is: "even if new theory is far superior in explaining phenomena". If the theory really is far superior then it will get adoption, of that there are countless examples. The Big Bang theory serving as an example again. The problem is, that any one individual may think that their theory is far superior but others may not agree. It then needs the test of time.

Trust me (I am a scientist >:D) and I have direct experience of this in the scientific community. Some of the stuff I have proposed initially met great skepticism - and I supported the skeptics! until the evidence could be gathered. Some of that early stuff has started to become accepted in the face of growing evidence (10 years of it) and other stuff has been rejected and rightly so as I got it wrong. That's the way it works and I am both happy and proud to be part of it. There is one academic of my acquaintance (presenting at this very conference I am attending) who holds on to some of the views that, to me, have been shown not to be correct. He is a very prominent scientist but he is now going through a process of post-rationalization. It can happen to the best of us. As I say it will only be the test of time that can be the final arbitrator.

The trouble with the sorts of conspiracy theories you seem to be supporting about 9-11 is that for them to be true, so many different aspects have to all come perfectly together. The motive, the means, the secrecy the number of people that had to be involved ... and the list goes on and on. It does not make it impossible just very unlikely and so you are bound to get challenged a great deal. Then the actually evidence starts to gather and that looks pretty weak (like it or not it is pretty weak) and then it is not surprising that the challenges get even tougher.

Remember Watergate? That started as a conspiracy theory until overwhelming evidence was presented and then it blew wide open very quickly. Are you telling me that the journalistic world would not do the same on 9-11 if what you are saying were true and get the Pulitzer of all Pulitzers?

The thing is, if real evidence is presented then skeptics would change their view. The other way round does not seem to work so well does it?