The Nihilist has an interesting post on open and closed mindedness. He argues both scientific and unscientific-minded folks run 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.”
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?
It’s worth reading the whole thing.
I’ve found over the years that when people talk about “open-mindedness,” how they define it is largely subjective. In the end, what they mean, when they say someone is “closed-minded,” is nothing more than that the person disagrees with them. It’s very similar to accusations of “bias”; e.g. when someone says a news story is “biased,” what they’re really saying is that the story didn’t happen to have been written in the precise manner they’d have written it themselves.
To date, I have never been able to discuss either “open-mindedness” or “bias” with anyone who was able to specify a definition for either and then stick with it. Both are terms that no one appears really to understand in any objective manner … except perhaps in the field of statistics, but even there, what constitutes “bias” can often be a matter of interpretation also.
Really, perceptions of “closed-mindedness” and “bias” and various other similar determinations are just psychological defense mechanisms which allow people to dismiss what others say without having to actually review the content of what they say.
Here is the source (QualiaSoup) the author quotes.
“Be more open-minded” means “change your mind to abandon your position and agree with my position, even though I cannot give you any good reason to do so.”
Sometimes experiences are hard to explain away. Here is my Indonesian Rapist Ghost story. I think the most valuable kind of open-mindedness is being try to truly understand how someone can be so different in both temperament and perceptions than you that what they perceive as truth, beauty and such is radically different from yourself. Now just because they “perceive” something does not make it true, of course, but that first step of recognition is drastically important.
IMHO
Whooops, sorry, just saw your unique comment policy of not allowing links. I thought you changed that. I did not want to cut and paste the whole story here. Again, hoping you will change this policy.
Let me know if you want the link.
The James Watson controversy comes to mind for atheist, pro-evolution types being irrationally opposed to something supported by empirical data.
I wasn’t aware of what the “James Watson controversy” was, and I just found this [published on the New Scientist website]: “Watson [said] that he was “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa,” adding that “[all] our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really”. Simply, he has “characterising people of African descent as genetically inferior”.
What if this is scientifically true, though? Should we tippy-toe passed the subject? Let’s say African people are genetically inferior and haven’t the intellectual capacity (potentiality) of some other races. That’s grounds for what? When people start taking action based on these discoveries, think, racial discrimination, eugenics, etc, that’s when we might wish to intervene, or speak out. But by publishing the facts, how is that harmful?
Peter Singer makes a similar argument in his book, Animal Liberation. He says, treating people with contempt based on arbitrary qualities like race, sexuality, species, gender, and so on, doesn’t make much moral sense. It’s at best a grasp at straws. Should we poke a dog with a stick because it hasn’t the ability to vote? Of course we shouldn’t. Should we treat African people as inferior because of the colour of their skin, or, in this case, their genetic value? Of course not.
Genetic inferiority has nothing to do with it.
Different average intelligence of races (black-white-Asian hierarchy) does not apply to individuals and doesn’t imply genetic determinism or moral value.
Peter Singer is one of the Darwinian left BTW.
“Should we poke a dog with a stick because it hasn’t the ability to vote?”
No, you really shouldn’t. And while you’re at it, don’t get your little girl a Pit Bull for Christmas, either.
I do hear that Labrador Retrievers are excellent with kids, though.