What does it mean: Open Minded

You've admitted to condescension, and I admire your honesty. I'm wondering what you think you're looking down upon exactly, is it different opinions or patent stupidity? I sense a continuing theme of victim status among skeptics that doesn't bare scrutiny. Proponents have more claim to such a position in a material hegemony, but are prepared to argue their corner, whereas skeptics resort to scorn as a first line of attack.
That don't let your brains fall out saying applies to all people in all walks of life and isn't exclusive to psi proponents. Stop making this an us against them. It is really tedious at times.
 
That don't let your brains fall out saying applies to all people in all walks of life and isn't exclusive to psi proponents. Stop making this an us against them. It is really tedious at times.

But you haven't explained the meaning of the saying. What exactly does the saying mean?
 
You are the one equating credulity with open-mindedness. Most of us would claim to be open minded so what, in your terms, does that make us? All of us have probably had one of those scam emails. I can't see what point you are trying to make other than implying that your brand of skepticism protects you from obvious scams while we - the open-minded - are likely to fall for them.
I find that people don't read what others write; they instead read what they think people write. So let me make this very clear. I do not have anyone in mind when writing, that means you, Gabe, Chuck, MysticG... So please stop taking everything as a personal attack.



Perhaps I didn't word is clearly enough: I meant do you imagine anyone here thinks that all paranormal claims be viewed with the same plausibility? I repeat, do you really think we swallow every story we read, believe every ghost story we hear or every horoscope we read? Again, you insult us. Your points don't really deserve a response and I've already given more than enough time to them.

In response to what you wrote previously, I asked a *singular question to you and no one else. Which paranormal ideas are less plausible?

* Being an open forum others can chime in if they want.
 
Last edited:
That don't let your brains fall out saying applies to all people in all walks of life and isn't exclusive to psi proponents. Stop making this an us against them. It is really tedious at times.
It may be tedious, but everything you say suggests you're a committed physicalist, and the slightest demurral from that position marks the commentator down as a gullible dupe. If I've misrepresented your position and you are open to other theories, I'd welcome your correction. The theme I perceive is one whereby skeptics protest their openness to reason, only in so far as the reason in question fits their prejudices. So open mindedness is a synonym for wishful thinking and evidence is a movable feast.
Parroting Richard Dawkins' pet pejorative is tribalism, not rationalism.
 
I find that people don't read what others write; they instead read what they think people write. So let me make this very clear. I do not have anyone in mind when writing, that means you, Gabe, Chuck, MysticG... So please stop taking everything as a personal attack.

In response to what you wrote previously, I asked a *singular question to you and know one else. Which paranormal ideas are less plausible?

* Being an open forum others can chime in if they want.

I don't feel like you have insulted or attacked me in any way. I am just trying to get you to define the saying "It's ok to have an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out." You say you agree with it, but you haven't been able to explain what it means.

And I also asked you to explain the relationship between credulity and open-mindedness.
 
It may be tedious, but everything you say suggests you're a committed physicalist, and the slightest demurral from that position marks the commentator down as a gullible dupe. If I've misrepresented your position and you are open to other theories, I'd welcome your correction. The theme I perceive is one whereby skeptics protest their openness to reason, only in so far as the reason in question fits their prejudices. So open mindedness is a synonym for wishful thinking and evidence is a movable feast.
Parroting Richard Dawkins' pet pejorative is tribalism, not rationalism.

To the underlined. Remember those two examples were meant as extreme examples which you agreed were. That's all they were.

To the italicized. If you scour the interwebs it is rather apparent there is a lot of open minded wishful thinking.

To the red text. Oh, give me a break. Never yourself quote lest you be a parrot and guilty of tribalism. I don't follow Dawkins and for the record I don't follow anyone else.

To the bold I did start a thread here http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/proving-the-immaterial-world.640/#post-14583 where you can address this and not have us derail this thread.
 
I thought I did. Now don't take this personally and that goes for anyone else too. Here goes. It means don't believe something to the point of utter stupidity.

Right. Before you said:

It means this. Don't think every idea is true.

So you are relating open-mindedness in the one case with belief and in the other case with what is true or not.

Explain, in a way that makes sense, what is the relationship between open-mindedness and truth. And what is the relationship between credulity and open-mindedness. You are relating them, but you are not explaining how they are related. Can you just expand a bit and explain the relationships?
 
It means don't believe something to the point of utter stupidity.
That sounds like ECREE, which relies on your definition of extraordinary. If someone tells me they can fly without artificial aid, I'd have to agree that's extraordinary, because I have never heard of such a claim ending well. If they tell me they've had an NDE, I'd assess their claim against its generic type and want to know some background.

Impossible - extraordinary - unlikely - possible - probable - certain. My own consciousness is the only one I can attest to for the last category.
 
Credulity and open-mindedness seem to me two completely different things. Credulity is about the degree to which one is prepared to believe things based on little or no good evidence, whereas open-mindedness is about how much we are willing to consider new ideas without prejudice isn't it? Open-mindedness doesn't seem to imply any kind of acceptance as far as I can see.
 
Last edited:
Credulity and open-mindedness seem to me two completely different things. Credulity is about the degree to which one is prepared to believe things based on little or no good evidence, whereas open-mindedness is about how much we are willing to consider new ideas without prejudice isn't it? Open-mindedness doesn't seem to imply any kind of acceptance as far as I can see.

I would agree. I can't see any logical relationship between the quality of being open-minded and the idea of credulity or the idea of whether something is true or not.

So according to your definition, someone who is open-minded is willing to consider ideas free of preconception about their ultimate veracity.

Is that right?
 
I would agree. I can't see any logical relationship between the quality of being open-minded and the idea of credulity or the idea of whether something is true or not.

So according to your definition, someone who is open-minded is willing to consider ideas free of preconception about their ultimate veracity.

Is that right?

I can't see any other logical conclusion. I did say new ideas though.

I think it may be more difficult to be open-minded about things we have already considered and formed an opinion about. It's probably easier to be more open-minded about a new piece of information or angle on something that we have already thought about. It's difficult to be open-minded about everything I would think but that needn't mean we aren't open to persuasion as far as I can see.

The difficulty can be that once we have made our mind up on a particular subject, the natural tendency is to defend it. Then, we have taken a position on it and I don't think can be called open-minded. We may still be open-minded about new information on the matter I suppose.

Just thinking this through, for myself, an example might be a person considers Psi to be impossible. I can think of a couple of positions to take:

  • It's impossible so everything that seems to support it is either a misunderstanding or fraud, even if I can't see why. - closed minded.
  • It's impossible but if you give ask me to consider fresh evidence I will consider it objectively and not simply try to find a way to devalue it - open minded.
  • I have not formed an opinion on the matter and am willing to hear evidence - open-minded
  • I have not formed an opinion on the matter and am not prepared to discuss it - not sure on this one :)
 
I can't see any other logical conclusion. I did say new ideas though.

I think it may be more difficult to be open-minded about things we have already considered and formed an opinion about. It's probably easier to be more open-minded about a new piece of information or angle on something that we have already thought about. It's difficult to be open-minded about everything I would think but that needn't mean we aren't open to persuasion as far as I can see.

The difficulty can be that once we have made our mind up on a particular subject, the natural tendency is to defend it. Then, we have taken a position on it and I don't think can be called open-minded. We may still be open-minded about new information on the matter I suppose.

Just thinking this through, for myself, an example might be a person considers Psi to be impossible. I can think of a couple of positions to take:

  • It's impossible so everything that seems to support it is either a misunderstanding or fraud, even if I can't see why. - closed minded.
  • It's impossible but if you give ask me to consider fresh evidence I will consider it objectively and not simply try to find a way to devalue it - open minded.
  • I have not formed an opinion on the matter and am willing to hear evidence - open-minded
  • I have not formed an opinion on the matter and am not prepared to discuss it - not sure on this one :)

So you think it not be possible to study the UFO phenomena for a number of years and remain open-minded? I do realize that our conceptions may alternately solidify and then become liquid again depending on the point in time. But if you are determined to remain open-minded on a certain topic, then I think it is possible to maintain that across time. That is why I didn't include "new" in the definition.
 
Steve.

Would you be inclined to change your mind and say that the phrase "It's ok to have an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out." is basically meaningless?

You haven't made any effort to define your previous statements about what the phrase means.
 
So you think it not be possible to study the UFO phenomena for a number of years and remain open-minded? I do realize that our conceptions may alternately solidify and then become liquid again depending on the point in time. But if you are determined to remain open-minded on a certain topic, then I think it is possible to maintain that across time. That is why I didn't include "new" in the definition.

Good question. Plus it's only my opinion fwiw.

I think it's perfectly possible to have seen enough evidence to be convinced about something and then be presented with new evidence which alters that conviction, if a person is open-minded. My observation is that sometimes people polarise once they become convinced and feel they have to defend any challenges. I'm not saying this is always the case. I know someone who is completely convinced of survival and I understand why, but they certainly don't feel the need to support their position at any cost and certainly not where there is no evidence to support a claim. In a sense they are not open-minded on the matter, but this is because they consider that they actually know for a fact in their view. Sorry if I am waffling.

As an example: I have considered the question of survival for many years. I'd say there is a lot of evidence to support it IMHO but I certainly wouldn't refuse to hear counter arguments. In this case I can't really imagine a single piece of evidence that would disprove survival, or even a sequence of pieces, yet I am not entirely convinced on the matter. Am I no longer open-minded? I think I am, but others may disagree. To some I might seem closed-minded.

I think it is possible to maintain an open-minded position even in the face of strong evidence, but personally I find it requires constant self-correction.

It's an interesting question. It's making me think :)
 
Last edited:
Steve.

Would you be inclined to change your mind and say that the phrase "It's ok to have an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out." is basically meaningless?

You haven't made any effort to define your previous statements about what the phrase means.
I have. You need to understand it. I did some checking on the origin of this saying. It's first iteration seems to be in 1937.
 
I have. You need to understand it. I did some checking on the origin of this saying. It's first iteration seems to be in 1937.

Thanks. I don't mean to be rude, but the depth of your engagement in discussion is surface level at best. You fail to recognize any nuance in the language you use. And when I ask you repeatedly to refine yourself, you just ignore the request. I think it is ironic that you represent yourself as a representative of rational thinking when what you display is nothing better than off the cuff.
 
Thanks. I don't mean to be rude, but the depth of your engagement in discussion is surface level at best. You fail to recognize any nuance in the language you use. And when I ask you repeatedly to refine yourself, you just ignore the request. I think it is ironic that you represent yourself as a representative of rational thinking when what you display is nothing better than off the cuff.
Do you want a practical example of the saying?
 
Thanks. I don't mean to be rude, but the depth of your engagement in discussion is surface level at best. You fail to recognize any nuance in the language you use. And when I ask you repeatedly to refine yourself, you just ignore the request. I think it is ironic that you represent yourself as a representative of rational thinking when what you display is nothing better than off the cuff.

When you look at what Sam Harris has to say about the materialist idea of emergence, perhaps only the gullible could buy such an explanation:

To say “Everything came out of nothing” is to assert a brute fact that defies our most basic intuitions of cause and effect—a miracle, in other words.

Likewise, the idea that consciousness is identical to (or emerged from) unconscious physical events is, I would argue, impossible to properly conceive—which is to say that we can think we are thinking it, but we are mistaken. We can say the right words, of course—“consciousness emerges from unconscious information processing.” We can also say “Some squares are as round as circles” and “2 plus 2 equals 7.” But are we really thinking these things all the way through? I don’t think so.

Consciousness—the sheer fact that this universe is illuminated by sentience—is precisely what unconsciousness is not. And I believe that no description of unconscious complexity will fully account for it. It seems to me that just as “something” and “nothing,” however juxtaposed, can do no explanatory work, an analysis of purely physical processes will never yield a picture of consciousness. However, this is not to say that some other thesis about consciousness must be true. Consciousness may very well be the lawful product of unconscious information processing. But I don’t know what that sentence means—and I don’t think anyone else does either.

As an aside, I wonder if Syntropy deals with his argument against free will.
 
When you look at what Sam Harris has to say about the materialist idea of emergence, perhaps only the gullible could buy such an explanation:

So it seems to be fine and dandy for a materialist to believe in miracles? And then go on to say that we only think we think but we don't think? Wow. Profound!

Now, S_S_P, am I missing something here or is Harris - the arch prosecutor - pleading the case for the defence in that piece? I know he's upset the faithful on a couple of occasions.
 
Back
Top