I’m starting this thread primarily because of dialogue I have witnessed in this one.
Seems to me that in some cases, expecting ‘open mindedness’ from your audience is just a way of saying “listen and don’t argue” - the moment an objection is raised, it provides a convenient get-out “you’re just not being open minded”.
What exactly is a reasonable definition of the term ‘open-minded’?
Hmm… I agree that most people tend to use the term “open-minded” as code for “agree with me”. However, I guess that a fair definition of an open-minded person would be someone who was prepared to accept the possibility that he or she may be wrong. In other words, you don’t cling blindly to your position come hell or high water, and deny any new evidence that comes along because it doesn’t fit your theory. Instead, you admit that you might not be in possession of all the facts, and that some of what the other person says could be true…
I agree with Damascene and wish more people who used the term would use the forementioned definiton. Mangetout I have seen you on about 75-80% of the boards I read and enjoy your insights. I have many myself but not the time to post (just to disclaim for the “Posts: #” to the left)
m-w defines it as “receptive to arguments or ideas.” That sounds about right to me. An open minded audience is one that will not reject someone’s opinions out of hand.
But what about situations wherein the other person is clearly wrong, e.g. if a person claims that the earth is flat? Is it right to say that the critic is being “closed-minded”?
Not necessarily. The person that does not accept that the earth is flat could do so based off of an informed and educated background, which could imply that he was receptive to it. He just was more receptive to the argument that had more to support it. 
Maybe the definition of open-minded should be amended to “REASONABLY receptive to arguments or ideas.”
It’s all a matter of semantics, of course.
The definitions offered look pretty good to me.
I think it easier to look at closed mindedness though. I would put that as having already made up your mind about a subject, and then refusing even to consider new/other evidence.
And open mindedness does not imply credulousness. You don’t have to accept any position just because it is offered, it should only be accepted on good evidence. Generally with ideas, that means that a new idea is more compatible with the available evidence than the current one.
A concrete example (that isn’t related to the linked thread) of where I have been accused of closed mindedness (falsely… I say, but judge for yourself).
When looking at all the free energy devices (M.E.G. and others), I immediately point out that these would violate Thermodynamics if they worked as described. I am immediately branded as closed minded. Not so says I. Please provide a working example of your free energy device to a person competent to examine it. If they declare that it works and that it does in fact appear to overturn thermodynamics… I would certainly be interested in hearing more. I am perfectly receptive of evidence that the device works, despite my protest that it would violate thermodynamics. Waving arms, and claiming that it works just isn’t evidence. If it really works, the evidence that I want to see would be perfectly simple to obtain… Please provide it, says I.
Closed minded? I don’t think so.
I think claims of close-mindedness are most appropriate when parties are unwilling to accept hypothetical solutions in causal situations that explain phenomena just as well as accepted solutions.
This is also quite rare.
To explain my perspective on open-mindedness, I need to first explore closed-mindedness.
Many of us here on the SDMB would classify themselves as a skeptic. I’m quite confident that most of us at one time or another, in our quest to fight ignorance, have been accused of being closed-minded. Closed-minded regarding all sorts of topics from astrology to palmistry; from mind-reading to spoon-bending. And on and on.
However, skepticism does not equate to closed-mindedness.
It is true that skeptics reject insubstantial evidence. But good skeptics do not simply reject any evidence conflicting with their current beliefs. Skeptics are always willing to consider good evidence or arguments in favor of an opposing claim. Skeptics follow the scientific method to arrive at provisional acceptance of theories. The degree of support for those theories can always change if new evidence arises to contradict the current theory, or new theories arise that better explain the evidence.
It seems to me that *open-mindedness is recognizing that what is currently believed is provisional. *
But open-mindedness does not mean being blindly open to any ol’ idea that could possibly explain the evidence. As I’ve heard stated numerous times, everyone is entitled to an opinion, but not all opinions are equally valuable. Skeptics believe the theory that best explains the evidence (without the intervention of the supernatural).
In addition, I think there is another aspect of being open-minded which is more behavioral than it is philosophical.
I think the reason we sometimes get painted with the closed-minded brush is because it is hard to remain patient with people who dogmatically hold beliefs that are unsupported by any evidence at all. Or worse, beliefs where there is plenty of evidence that those beliefs are false. It is frustrating to try to have a discussion with someone who is willfully ignorant. And the word “willfully” is important here. I am very understanding of ignorance if the person desires to become less ignorant. In spite of my age and experience, I myself remain quite ignorant in many matters. But I don’t discard evidence just because it conflicts with my current beliefs. I relish the new information.
This quest for knowledge requires a balance of advocacy and inquiry. All too many times, we spend all our time advocating our positions. I’m right and you’re wrong. All this does is put the other person on the defensive and results in them accusing us of being close-minded when we “win” the debate. Sincere inquiry can be very effective. Saying “Hmmmmm, that is interesting. We have come to different conclusions. Help me understand. What is it that leads you to your conclusion? What do you see that I don’t see?” Granted, this approach is pointless with someone who has no insight into how they’ve arrived at their beliefs, or if those beliefs are held purely on faith.
Algernon, that is nearly exactly what I was trying to say… But, I think you captured it better.
Well put, scotth and algernon. Being willing to entertain varying views, does not require that all views be deemed equally valid or meritous.
Taking a lighter tone, reminds me of something I culled some time ago from some guy’s sig block:
“When faced with a massive paradigm shift, we try not to condemn it simply because it’s different. Instead, we try to evaluate it objectively on its own merits, and then condemn it because it sucks.”
I think we have a nice example of closed mindedness in this thread:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2613994
Look for a post about ignoring people because they are athiest about half way down the page. A good example of someone uninterested in another’s testimony because they hold a different view.
The statements should be valued on their own merits rather than by who’s mouth they come from.
I think it was either Carl Sagan, Martin Gardner, or James Randi who said:
“You shouldn’t be so open-minded that your brains fall out.”
Ed
It is certainly in “Demon Haunted World”, by Carl Sagan… That doesn’t exclude it coming from the other sources as well.
I nearly used that quote earlier.
I think we are all closed minded on some issues.
Algernon, I think your take on “sceptics" is a little idealized.
Quit often scepticism is used to cover up ignorance and a fear of believing something. And many are sceptical just for the sake of being so.
Originally posted by Algernon
What is considered “”good evidence”” to some is hog wash to others.
Now that is considered close minded to many.
Opened mindedness is generally considered the disposition to be receptive to other ideas but not necessarily unprejudiced. That is, we cannot approach a subject without some point of view other wise we would not perceive it.
For example, take this topic of opened mindedness. My first response is that it is defined like all else by its opposite. And I immediately think of it as an oxymoron. That’s my bias.
Are you opened mined to close mindedness?
Almost all minds, individuals have something to loose, and that prevents them from being opened.
I think it is also a question of how much one is ready and able to question the foundations of their own sense or feeling of security in their apparent knowledge.
Actually, I missed the (without the intervention of the supernatural) part the first time.
I would take exception to that as well. I am perfectly open to the supernatural. I just haven’t seen any evidence for it.
I have always seen simpler anwers. I am instantly wary when people invoke the supernatural every time that another answer isn’t available. That isn’t quite the same…
However, if someone says they have evidence of the supernatural, I am quite interested in seeing it. When the supernatural is simply invoked because no other answer is obvious… well, that is just a total cop out.
A mystery is a mystery. It does no justice to the mystery or the idea of the supernatural to use it to explain everything someone doesn’t understand.
Evidence that spoke directly to the existence of the supernatural would of great interest to me.
Actually, if anyone provided anything like solid evidence for the existance of the supernatural, I would be much more willing to except as a working hypothesis for mysterious events. I would still say they needed to directly tie a supernatural entity to the mysterious event for it be really credible, though.
All quotes by Iamthat.
You’re entitled to your opinion. I perhaps am using the term “skeptic” a bit more narrowly than the general population seems to define the term. In general use parlance, it seems to mean “disbeliever”. I tend to prefer “critical thinker”.
If you replaced the term “skepticism” with “close-minded dogmatism”, then I’d agree with you. I maintain that true skepticism is the opposite of close-minded dogmatism. And where did you come to the conclusion that skeptics don’t believe in anything? They most certainly do believe. They believe in the evidence. (Geez… I sound like I’m on the television show CSI.)
I was wondering if anyone was going to call me on my parenthetical statement. The reason I wrote it that way is that the supernatural is a belief of faith, not evidence.
I agree that everyone has a set of beliefs. I suppose one could say that makes one prejudiced. I indeed have preferences to some explanations over other explanations.
Ummmm. Well, I believe close-mindedness exists. Does that make me open-minded about it?
On preview, I see scotth has addressed the supernatural parenthetical comment as well, and ably so. I completely agree with his post.
While I don’t believe in supernatural things, I do believe there are natural occurences that are labeled “supernatural” by some simple because they don’t understand their cause.
Example: If an ancient cave dweller were shown how to hunt with a machinegun, he would surely think it was supernatural.
But when the talk turns to things like God, ghosts, and ESP then
the cry of supernatural is applied. Perhaps we just don’t understand so we blow it off close-mindedly.
God can’t be disproved or proved, so an open-minded person would not criticize another for believing in God.
Through near death experiences there is a great deal of evidence that life will continue after death. www.ndeweb.com/wildcard
So I believe you are in error saying “best evidence, without supernatural.” (paraphrased)
God can certainly be proven as meaningless beyond all reasonable doubt; and this type of logic can be traced back to the very root of all abuses incurred amongst human beings with each-other.
Would an open-minded person critisize someone for engaging to kill them out of the blue?
Is it correct to inform someone that you disagree with them if there is no logical reason to exist or do anything in the first place?
Should open-minded people expose themselves to pure suggestability; is that the definition of an open-minded person?
If someone believes something which is false, and abuses you personally as a result; does it even matter if reason itself doesn’t validate your very own being?
-Justhink