It seems to be an extremely common experience
among people who don't believe in certain non-scientific concepts
to be told by others who do to be more open-minded.
This advice is typically based on highly flawed thinking
including an inaccurate understanding of what open-mindedness is.
In fact, being open-minded simply means being willing
to consider new ideas.
Science promotes and thrives on open-mindedness
because the advancement of our understanding about the reality in which we exist
depends upon our willingness to consider new ideas.
Indeed, scientific discovery
often requires entirely new ways of thinking.
However, not only does believing in certain non-scientific concepts
not automatically make you open-minded
it can often lead you to be the complete opposite.
A neighbour of mine once noticed a moving lampshade
in my front room and said it was a ghost.
When I told him it wasn't
he said, "You've got the evidence in front of you"
and said I was stubbornly closed-minded and had no curiosity.
When he'd finished his little outburst
I reached down and switched off the small fan heater underneath the lamp
to stop its currents of warm air from moving the shade.
It was actually my neighbour who'd had no curiosity in this situation.
He'd leapt to an immediate conclusion and dismissed all alternatives.
When you label an event 'supernatural'
just because it has no explanation that's obvious to you
you'll inevitably misinterpret evidence
and make invalid causal connections.
You'll eliminate whole realms of alternative explanation
before it's even clear which explanations might be appropriate
and that's the very definition of closed-mindedness.
People who tell others to be more open-minded
about so-called 'supernatural' concepts
often accompany this advice with one or more personal anecdotes
they claim can't be explained.
This is another flawed approach.
Even if your experience can't be explained
that in no way strengthens the case for any supernatural concept.
All it shows is that your experience can't be explained.
Trying to suggest that a lack of explanation is evidence
that supernatural powers are at work
is actually a contradiction.
In effect what it's saying is:
"I can't explain something, therefore I can explain it."
The unexplained is just that: unexplained.
Furthermore, although it's quite reasonable
to describe an experience and say you can't explain it
telling your audience they can't explain it is senseless
because your audience has no independent access to the events you describe
nor any way of investigating which details you may have missed or edited out.
If my neighbour had told other people they had to accept his ghost story
because they couldn't explain the moving lampshade
how would anyone be able to agree or disagree without knowing anything about the fan heater?
Expecting others just to take your word
that you've had a brush with the supernatural is simply unrealistic.
Even if I saw someone disappear right in front of me
I'd recognize how unreasonable it would be
to expect a complete stranger just to believe me without corroborating evidence
however personally frustrating that might feel.
Someone once tried to suggest to me
that scientists who ask for evidence
before accepting claims are as closed-minded as witch doctors.
The idea that requiring evidence makes you closed-minded is a fallacy.
A willingness to consider new ideas doesn't commit you to accepting them unconditionally.
If someone you love was lying injured and unconscious
and a complete stranger told you she had some magic powder
that would cause instant healing if poured into the wounds
would you just accept this stranger's claim?
Would it be closed-minded
not to let her pour a substance you know nothing about
into the open wounds of someone you love?
We're all sceptical about SOME things.
If Alfie isn't sceptical about the existence of ghosts and Beth is
it may be that Beth's experience
of other people's flawed evidence and logic
has given her strong reasons to be sceptical.
Now, if Alfie develops a valid operational definition
for what ghosts are supposed to be
and produces valid evidence
Beth might one day re-evaluate and accept their existence.
But it's important to remember
that unless Beth says something like, "Ghosts do not exist"
she's made no factual claim requiring justification
or indicating a closed mind.
I've watched a number of people work themselves up into a froth
about me having a closed mind on some paranormal issue
only to realize, when they start listening carefully
that I don't actually hold the views they've rashly attributed to me.
For example, when I say "I don't believe X"
I've not said, "It can't be true".
All I've said is, "I've not yet been presented with persuasive evidence for X".
Now, if someone describes an entity to me that's logically impossible
then in those specific cases, I might well say, "X cannot be true"
and I'll back up my statement.
But it's a classic debating trick to exaggerate
and therefore misrepresent another person's position
and when you treat someone's statement of non-belief
as an assertion that something 'cannot be true'
this is exactly what you're doing.
If you have difficulty accepting that other people don't share your beliefs
then that's unfortunate for you, because there's a lot of difference out there.
But if knowing that someone's beliefs differ from yours
causes you to lose a sense of perspective when talking to them
so that as soon as you hear certain trigger words
you start grafting inaccurately assumed attitudes onto them
you're no longer communicating.
You're merely rehearsing your own prejudices.
And that's truly closed-minded
In the course of my life
I've been told to be more open-minded by people
who believe in a god but not reincarnation
and people who believe in reincarnation but not gods.
Both groups seem quite happy
for others to express scepticism when they do
but not when they don't.
For these people, open-mindedness seems to mean 'agreeing with me'.
Then there are others whose idea of open-mindedness
is accepting the unreliable testimony
of any random person with a spooky story.
These people are often also fiercely sceptical of science
certain comments can quickly reveal their poor understanding of what it is
and this results in two supreme ironies:
One is that they're guilty of exactly the same sceptical attitude
they criticise in other people.
The other is that what they're reserving their scepticism for
is a domain that emphasizes scepticism.
In other words, they're sceptical of scepticism.
Again, open-mindedness isn't about believing things
so believing in more paranormal things than the next person doesn't make you more open-minded
though it can be a sign that you're more gullible
and despite what some people would have us believe
it's not a virtue to be easily persuaded by people.
Those who say it is, and that requiring evidence is closed-minded
clearly wouldn't survive one day in a court of law.
After all, what does the person with that attitude do in any situation
where there's more than one version of events?
And is it closed-minded
to require evidence of someone's guilt
before locking them up?
These attitudes don't stand up for a moment in the real world.
It would be absurd to suggest we need evidence for everything we're told.
When a friend tells us about their day at work
we don't ask them to back up what they say
And we don't stop enjoying films and stories
just because they contain incredible events.
But when someone's trying to persuade us to accept something as fact
or take some sort of risk
demanding valid evidence helps us distinguish true claims from false ones,
and that's an invaluable ability in a world where believing false claims
can seriously damage your wealth and your health.
Critical thinking is not incompatible with open-mindedness.
On the contrary, it empowers an open mind.
Even though demanding valid evidence may lead you occasionally
to reject ideas that are poorly supported but nonetheless valid
if and when evidence accumulates for those ideas
an open mind will allow you to re-consider them
and possibly dislodge false ideas
you'd previously accepted as true.
This approach is promoted by science.
By contrast, when you have an open mind
but demand little or no evidence before accepting things
you leave your understanding of reality much more up to chance.
Even worse, if you've accepted false ideas uncritically
and close your mind to anything that contradicts them
you won't recognise true ideas even when the evidence is overwhelming
and you'll sabotage your own capacity for learning.
If you believe in pseudoscientific and supernatural concepts
that's your privilege.
If you want to put forward your personal reasons for believing in them
understanding that whoever's listening
may have questions or find flaws in your arguments, that's fine.
But if you're in the habit of targeting individuals you've never met
and suggesting they're in some way deficient
just because they don't believe in these concepts;
if you reject conflicting evidence and counter-arguments without consideration
but demand that others accept your arguments
and what you regard as evidence uncritically
not only is that closed-minded
it's controlling, arrogant and presumptuous in the extreme.
More importantly, when you're trying to make it seem unreasonable
for someone to want evidence before changing a significant attitude
or take a significant risk
the mere fact that your claim requires a suspension of critical thinking
should indicate it's not the other person that needs to demand less evidence
but you that needs to demand more.
Before presuming to advise others to be 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 other people.
Remember too that an open mind that demands little or no evidence
for ideas before accepting them
will let in an awful lot of rubbish.