Openmindedness - good thing or bad thing?: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Metaphysics and Epistemology » Openmindedness - good thing or bad thing? » Openmindedness - good thing or bad thing?

Openmindedness - good thing or bad thing?

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Openmindedness - good thing or bad thing?

anglo beast child
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 21, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 2

Posted 04/21/09 - 11:14 PM:	#11
"In order to be knowledge, shouldn't it at least be true?" I don't think knowledge, in the way it's being discussed, is necessarily true. To know about a false thing is to still know a thing. Regardless of a truth-value, we can still know something, e.g. Santa, Jesus, Tom of Finland, Forrest Gump. Every day we know different fictions, representations, metaphors to be true as well as false. Is "better" really "up"? No, but we know it's true. Maybe I'm just focused too much on language. I guess what I mean to say about the poster's original point is that there is still something to be gained intellectually from knowledges that we "know" to be untrue, or those which we meet with agnosticism. Even the placebo effect, which the poster mentions, isn't grounded by a tether of "knowledge," right? We accept it, though it's not explained by any explicit knowledge. I will consult Foucault and Gump. Edited by anglo beast child on 04/21/09 - 11:27 PM

ducttape
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 16, 2008

Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 154

Posted 04/22/09 - 02:02 AM:	#12
Banno wrote: If you keep your mind too open, other people will fill it with garbage. And I think in a similar vein one of the posters here uses a quote attributed to Carl Sagan amongst others...'It pays to keep an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out.' anglo beast child wrote: this is probably true, given your rhetoric of "trash," "idiot," etc that rhetoric was the reason I said I was probably biased, I almost edited those out decided to keep them because they do reflect my feelings. 123savethewhales wrote: being open minded to one thing is being close minded to another I don't agree that being open minded to one thing means being closed to its opposite. Being "open" to an idea merely means becoming aware of the idea's existence and accepting the possibility, no matter how improbable, that it is true, and probabilities of opposing ideas can be considered. My new-agey friend with the water crystals describes her standpoint enigmatically as "believing in everything and nothing". She has a kind of Pascal-esque wager on these matters, writing the word "love" on her water bottle and visualizing good things and feeling good feelings around it. She says even if it isn't true, it can't hurt. And, I must admit, if you feel positive every time you take a sip of water you'll surely emotionally benefit indirectly from the water. It strikes me as being like touching wood for luck - it costs nothing and the psychological satisfaction may well outweigh any potential harm in believing in superstition. anglo beast child wrote: is "knowledge" necessarily a "true" thing? No, and I'm happy to be aware of these things though it does degrade my respect for the human race somewhat, as she says she wants to be aware of everything, even if it is not true. However, I think that being aware of the vast quantities of bunk out there is not as useful as being aware of the vast quantities of truth out there. It seems wasteful of time and brainpower to devote oneself to understanding the false standpoints of every pseudoscientist and conspiracy theorist out there. The friend who showed me Zeitgeist said "It doesn't matter if it's true or not, its more of an exercise in critical thinking." It is perhaps useful to encourage people to question what they are told, to open people's minds as it were, but surely it would be more useful to watch in general realistic, referenced and factual documentaries about history and politics which would hone your perception of reality ever closer to the truth?

Banno
Old goat

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
Location: Oz

Total Topics: 109
Total Posts: 6192

Posted 04/22/09 - 03:49 AM:	#13
anglo beast child wrote: I will consult Foucault and Gump. Knowledge is generally understood to be justified true belief. I think you should give some consideration to what you call knowledge being only a belief. edit: somewhat cryptically, the little speech bubble in the corner of a post will quote it for you. Edited by Banno on 04/22/09 - 03:55 AM
Davidson: We make maximum sense of the words and thoughts of others when we interpret in a way that optimizes agreement. Russel Morris: There's a meaning there, but the meaning there doesn't really mean a thing... Ned: Such is life

ducttape
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 16, 2008

Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 154

Posted 04/22/09 - 01:00 PM:	#14
Banno wrote: Knowledge is generally understood to be justified true belief. But you can have justified true belief in the existence of an idea, even if it is false. This is also knowledge, potentially useful knowledge. I think, for example, its important I have knowledge of Christianity's existence and knowledge of the Bible as an important literary work even though I believe it is completely false. Banno wrote: edit: somewhat cryptically, the little speech bubble in the corner of a post will quote it for you. Wow! 67 posts in and im only discovering this now!! you've totally doubled my productivity!!

Banno
Old goat

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
Location: Oz

Total Topics: 109
Total Posts: 6192

Posted 04/22/09 - 07:06 PM:	#15
ducttape wrote: But you can have justified true belief in the existence of an idea, even if it is false. This is also knowledge, potentially useful knowledge. I think, for example, its important I have knowledge of Christianity's existence and knowledge of the Bible as an important literary work even though I believe it is completely false. You can know that Christians believe that Christ rose from the dead; that is quite different to knowing that Christ rose from the dead. In neither case do you know somehting that is not true. I recommend the Wiki article on Epistemology for your consideration: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology
Davidson: We make maximum sense of the words and thoughts of others when we interpret in a way that optimizes agreement. Russel Morris: There's a meaning there, but the meaning there doesn't really mean a thing... Ned: Such is life

Black Glory
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 10, 2009
Location: Michigan, USA

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 42

Posted 04/22/09 - 07:24 PM:	#16
ducttape wrote: As we gain knowledge, so does our individual perception of reality expand. This can cause us to become more and more closed off. I would argue, however, that this is a natural and useful result of gaining knowledge, to further refine our viewpoint in an efficient sort of way without having to examine in depth every claim that is made. We all are closed to some ideas whether we want to be or not (and know it or not). Is it right to dismiss claims that, in your perception, are probably false, to allow more time and effort on claims that are possibly true? In doing so, are you being closed-minded by pre-judging the ideas and concentrating on the more likely ones - and could this damage your perception of reality? If Socrates taught us anything it is to question, question, and question. I think by questioning, even the most ridiculous of claims, we eventually arrive at a conclusion. The only factor is whether or not the ridiculous claim matters to you or not. I do think that by dismissing claims that you believe to be false can cause a sort of closed-mindedness and that it can damage your perception of reality. But by too closely examining false claims and then being convinced that they are true have a damaging effect also. Each person has some sort of balance when it comes to acquiring knowledge. The greatest precaution one must take is that one pursues the right methods of acquiring that knowledge and can maintain that balance. So long as our minds are open to learning true things, they are also open to learning false things. We just have to learn to differentiate between the two without closing ourselves off to those true things. Imo
"Death is a mystery and burial is a secret." -Stephen King "All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing." -Edmund Burke ~~Black Glory~~

Vlad101
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 22, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 1

Posted 04/22/09 - 08:07 PM:	#17
But then again, what exactly is open mindedness? It could be a characteristic of you taking in many theories, evaluations, and observations while thinking about one topic, therefore widening it's range, while you seem to throw away other topics that you are not interested in. And then, as you said, it could be from the very beginning the interest and acceptance of many different topics, rather than focusing on one and then widening its range.

ducttape
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 16, 2008

Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 154

Posted 04/22/09 - 09:58 PM:	#18
Banno wrote: You can know that Christians believe that Christ rose from the dead; that is quite different to knowing that Christ rose from the dead. In neither case do you know somehting that is not true. Isn't that exactly what I'm saying? I know that some people believe Christ rose from the dead. Is this not true, and do I not have a piece of true knowledge that I know this? I read as much of the Wiki article as I had time for at the moment and did not notice where my ignorance lies in this case. Is it to do with the fact that "knowledge" by definition cannot be false? - if so I think we can agree that we know Christians believe Christ rose from the dead, or at least that they believe they know he did. This may or may not be knowledge on the Christians' part, but there is no way of telling at this time. On the other hand, knowing that some people believe this, is almost certainly true and therefore knowledge, to all extents of the usefulness of the verb "know" in the present tense. Black Glory wrote: I do think that by dismissing claims that you believe to be false can cause a sort of closed-mindedness and that it can damage your perception of reality. But by too closely examining false claims and then being convinced that they are true have a damaging effect also. Each person has some sort of balance when it comes to acquiring knowledge. This is my fear, that I have not struck the correct balance, particularly that friends have criticised me in this area. Because of the negative connotations associated with the word I unfortunately feel that being accused of closedmindedness is quite a serious concern. How does one determine this balance, and in your opinion would conspiracy theories and apparent pseudoscience be candidates for open-minded inquiry? Vlad101 wrote: while you seem to throw away other topics that you are not interested in As much as I'd like to know everything, time constraints are a bit of a limiting factor. If true, conspiracy theories about the Illuminati and mentally transforming water would be intensely interesting (to me at least) but if false, not whatsoever. I think the best we can hope for is "to know a little about everything and a lot about something". Finally, would any or all of you agree that to some extent it is important/useful/interesting to know about the existence of various conspiracy theories and pseudoscience simply for general knowledge? Perhaps as a litmus test of the truth value of true things. If we know the pattern false statements follow (ie non referenced, non published, non peer reviewed etc) it might help us determine what is a waste of our time faster. Or is this just another example of my closing my mind off?

123savethewhales
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 25, 2009

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 326

Posted 04/23/09 - 08:26 PM:	#19
ducttape wrote: I don't agree that being open minded to one thing means being closed to its opposite. Being "open" to an idea merely means becoming aware of the idea's existence and accepting the possibility, no matter how improbable, that it is true, and probabilities of opposing ideas can be considered. My new-agey friend with the water crystals describes her standpoint enigmatically as "believing in everything and nothing". She has a kind of Pascal-esque wager on these matters, writing the word "love" on her water bottle and visualizing good things and feeling good feelings around it. She says even if it isn't true, it can't hurt. And, I must admit, if you feel positive every time you take a sip of water you'll surely emotionally benefit indirectly from the water. It strikes me as being like touching wood for luck - it costs nothing and the psychological satisfaction may well outweigh any potential harm in believing in superstition. By opening to consideration that something can be true, it also opens to door to the opposite can be false. If you only open a very small possibility to one thing being true, you are only taking away the same amount from it's opposite. Of course, if you open a big enough possibility, You can become "uncertain" of things, or "to believe in everything and nothing". However, actions require absolute choices. Like the water bottle, you can only write or not write on it. You can't really be in between. But as you put it, this is a win or neutral situation, so there are no opposite in the beliefs. I am not ask to believe in superstition. It isn't a matter of "do I believe in superstition or not", it is, "Superstition doesn't have to be true, I still get the positive emotion out of it, which is worth more than 2 seconds to write on the bottle". It would only be an opposite if there are something to lose in believing in the superstition, such as rather or not to spend a thousand dollar on a magic crystal. Edited by 123savethewhales on 04/23/09 - 08:39 PM
Keep it simple.

unenlightened
everything is...

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Aug 10, 2007
Location: Wales

Total Topics: 36
Total Posts: 3203

Posted 04/23/09 - 08:54 PM:	#20
ducttape wrote: For the purposes of this topic can we assume that there is one reality and only one truth, and assume one's goal is to determine what that truth is. Progress in this quest would be my definition of aquiring knowledge. We certainly can assume this, but in doing so we should perhaps be aware that we are already closing our minds to other goals that we might have. One might argue that the aquiring of knowledge consists in the progressive closing of the mind to possibilities. Knowing X is the closing of the mind to the possibility of not-X. Personally, I have the feeling that there is more to life than knowing; that there is always something unknown to be faced.
...most of our actions are the result of the past, or according to a future ideal. That's not action, that is just conformity. J Krishnamurti "Philosophy, to the Philistine, is an evolutionary process, watched over by some sort of brisk dynamic Providence, and culminating in the supreme insight of modern thought." John Cowper Powys

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.