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?

Thinking Thing
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 22, 2009

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 331

Posted 05/12/09 - 02:42 AM:	#31
ducttape wrote: I wonder though if that prejudice would cause you to perhaps be biased too negatively against the author. It gives me the exact right amount of negative bias, if that's what you want to call it when you ignore ignorant people. ducttape wrote: Because you are expecting him to not make any sense you might miss the grains of truth he might be hiding. We are all, after all, ignorant to some degree. Well, since his assumptions were wrong, it is highly unlikely the article says anything meaningful - if it does, it does so by accident, and if it does so by accident, I'm not interested. I do not collect facts, I collect explanations.

basdirks
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 05, 2009
Location: Psychiatric ward

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 44

Posted 05/12/09 - 08:07 AM:	#32
Philosophy is a balancing act. If you really MUST KNOW, be prepared to face an abyss. Be well read, to make sure your own "big thoughts" won't shake you. Be open, but don't accept garbage.

ducttape
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 16, 2008

Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 154

Posted 05/13/09 - 04:30 AM:	#33
Thinking Thing wrote: It gives me the exact right amount of negative bias, if that's what you want to call it when you ignore ignorant people. Well, since his assumptions were wrong, it is highly unlikely the article says anything meaningful - if it does, it does so by accident, and if it does so by accident, I'm not interested. I do not collect facts, I collect explanations. This is my viewpoint as well, I'm glad you said this because I think I was looking for some validation of my "closed-mindedness". When I recognise that an author is ignorant, perhaps just in that he does not follow a logical train of though to arrive at his conclusions and that they will be unfounded, I "turn off" to a degree and even become hostile to his assertions. I believe that anyone who cares about the truth should find unfounded or false assertions distasteful. However, many people don't like to follow the patterns of formal logic and some would argue that for certain things such as supernatural beings cannot be understood with logic. Perhaps you (and I) are missing out on a lot of knowledge because we are turned off by ignorant assumptions. We can always consider the potential lack of universal truth, but I don't like the idea because if it is so, everything we know becomes meaningless so it is pointless to try to determine the truth. We may as well assume that there is universal truth because otherwise there is no sense in any discussion.

basdirks
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 05, 2009
Location: Psychiatric ward

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 44

Posted 05/13/09 - 04:45 AM:	#34
ducttape wrote: We can always consider the potential lack of universal truth, but I don't like the idea because if it is so, everything we know becomes meaningless so it is pointless to try to determine the truth. That isn't so. Truths can stand in relation to our needs. Consider the example: "This plant is poisonous". Now this truth is very useful, but very human. A bird might need this same plant for survival. Now I could have said: "This plant is poisonous for human beings", but that's really redundant. The point is that a truth needn't be universal to be of great use.

Thinking Thing
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 22, 2009

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 331

Posted 05/13/09 - 05:02 AM:	#35
ducttape wrote: However, many people don't like to follow the patterns of formal logic and some would argue that for certain things such as supernatural beings cannot be understood with logic. Perhaps you (and I) are missing out on a lot of knowledge because we are turned off by ignorant assumptions. Well if so, it's knowledge that we can never know is knowledge. Perhaps there are some truths out there that cannot be deduced or even induced, but simply must be accepted. Such a truth may well be held, but cannot be known. The question then arises: what is the use of such truth? Knowledge should have some effect on us, else we are the same for having it as for not having it. If there exists a truth that cannot be arrived at, it follows that our world operates the same with it as without it. Such truths seem infinitely trivial to me, to the point where I suspect their non-existence. Further, to hold such a truth is arbitrary. It being true is one thing, a thing that cannot be known. Us holding that it is true is a separate phenomenon, and one that is likely as natural as we are. If we can only discover such truths via learning of the arbitrary holding of it by others, we still have no reason to accept it, and every reason to reject it, even if it is true, which cannot be known. So we're speaking here of truths that a) cannot be known; b) do not matter; c) are arbitrarily held; and d) are arrived at from ignorance. Even if it is true, I fail to see the lack in not holding it to be true. It seems my time would be better spent learning other truths, ones that I can know.Further, any truth that is indistinguishable from a falsehood arrived at by the same means is more safely rejected than accepted. ducttape wrote: We can always consider the potential lack of universal truth, but I don't like the idea because if it is so, everything we know becomes meaningless so it is pointless to try to determine the truth. We may as well assume that there is universal truth because otherwise there is no sense in any discussion. Even that aside, we have good reason to believe in such truths when they are consistent with experience. If we hold that X is always true in our experience, and in our experience X is always true, we have truth. Since we only have our experience to refer to, the stating of 'in our experience' is implicitly tautological, and may be dropped. Thus we can say that if we hold X is always true, and X is always true, we have truth, arrived at inductively. Can we ever say this? I'd say yes: conservation of laws of nature, for instance, are universal truths arrived at inductively. We can also have almost limitless knowledge from deduction: for instance, we can hold that conserved property X varying periodically isn't true, and we have truth. And these are, of course, the bases of our knowledge of the universe: integration by induction; elimination by deduction.

ducttape
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 16, 2008

Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 154

Posted 05/13/09 - 05:29 AM:	#36
basdirks wrote: That isn't so. Truths can stand in relation to our needs. Consider the example: "This plant is poisonous". Now this truth is very useful, but very human. A bird might need this same plant for survival. Now I could have said: "This plant is poisonous for human beings", but that's really redundant. The point is that a truth needn't be universal to be of great use. That's not really what I meant, I was talking more about the possibility of the existence of paradoxes and conflicting truths to both be true. I don't believe "This plant is poisonous for human beings" is a redundant statement, it may be redundant in our day to day life but it is knowledge that is worth more now that it is qualified. Thinking Thing wrote: Well if so, it's knowledge that we can never know is knowledge. Agreed, and I believe it is worthless to even consider. But if the definition of knowledge is a belief that is true, we will never be able to determine whether or not anything we call knowledge colloquially is really so, because we cannot know without a doubt the truth value of any statement. Thinking Thing wrote: So we're speaking here of truths that a) cannot be known; b) do not matter; c) are arbitrarily held; and d) are arrived at from ignorance. Even if it is true, I fail to see the lack in not holding it to be true. It seems my time would be better spent learning other truths, ones that I can know.Further, any truth that is indistinguishable from a falsehood arrived at by the same means is more safely rejected than accepted. This is my argument exactly against any belief that is arrived at through means other than logic and it is my argument against being "open-minded" to the ideas we spoke about at the start of this thread, such as water crystals and conspiracy theories.

basdirks
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 05, 2009
Location: Psychiatric ward

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 44

Posted 05/13/09 - 05:55 AM:	#37
ducttape wrote: That's not really what I meant, I was talking more about the possibility of the existence of paradoxes and conflicting truths to both be true. I don't believe "This plant is poisonous for human beings" is a redundant statement, it may be redundant in our day to day life but it is knowledge that is worth more now that it is qualified. It is worth more as knowledge if knowledge were an end in itself. But knowledge is more than just and end. It has it's use in making sense of the world we live in.

ducttape
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 16, 2008

Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 154

Posted 05/14/09 - 12:44 AM:	#38
personally I feel that knowledge is an end in itself. I consider it almost a flaw that I'm not interested in some subjects. I would like to know as much as possible in order to refine my world view and bring it ever closer to the ultimate truth (that I do believe exists). However, I realise that the truth about reality will always be biased by our human nature. Just as reality to a dolphin will have far more focus on pressure, echolocation etc.

upstreamdream
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 30, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 0

Posted 06/30/09 - 04:52 PM:	#39
ducttape wrote: So, to be open-minded or not to be open-minded? Here's a first thought. To be open-minded means to wish to find value in others' beliefs, attitudes etc. It is our nature to prioritize - we must choose to pursue some goals over others, so it is not close-minded to attend to some matters at the expense of others. To be close-minded, again at first thought, is to reject the possibility of finding the said value (and thereby to reject the beliefs, attitudes etc.). As we can benefit from others' differences in values, it is good to be open-minded. Edited by upstreamdream on 06/30/09 - 05:29 PM
A clean conscience is the most important thing.

jtoma
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 24, 2009

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 34

Posted 07/02/09 - 09:16 PM:	#40
Be as open minded as your goals permit.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6

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