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?

ducttape
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 16, 2008

Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 154

Posted 04/20/09 - 05:23 AM: Subject: Openmindedness - good thing or bad thing?	#1
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. I'm sure we've all had our fill of plenty of bunk as we have been acquiring knowledge. Oftentimes when faced with new information, one has to make a bit of a spot judgement as to its truth value, in order to determine whether or not it is worth looking into at all. This is necessary because of the sheer amount of information there is on the sheer number of topics out there. So, when presented with some theory or phenomenon that totally does not fit in with your current view of reality, one tends to reject it out of hand. Proponents of that theory or phenomenon sometimes then criticize you for being closed-minded. Of course, our individual ignorance of this vast universe is virtually infinite. So, it would make sense perhaps to remain open to everything no matter how absurd it might seem. Indeed, many of our leaps of intellect could only have been made with the creative, lateral thinking which ran contrary to the accepted body of knowledge. Einstein once said, "I did not come to the fundamental laws of the universe through the functioning of my rational mind". 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? So, to be open-minded or not to be open-minded? To give an illustrating example - a friend showed me a DVD by this idiot, Masaru Emoto. He claims that human beings have the power to affect a sample of water's "structure" by projecting positive and negative emotions onto it. When frozen to form snowflakes in what he claims are scientific experiments, the water that had positive emotions projected onto it formed beautiful, symmetric crystalline structures while the ones that had negative emotions formed ugly, broken structures. Furthermore, when the water was drunk or given to plants, the positive water better supported life, happiness, etc. My friend, appealing to a belief in "the power of the human mind" to change the quality of water, (based on ideas I accept, such as the placebo effect) said that she has not decided whether or not it is true, but wants to stay "open" to the idea. Because it went so solidly against my worldview, namely that the human mind cannot project this kind of power externally, my first instinct was that it was utter bunk, and she accused me of being closed minded. I guess out of offence or pride, I researched the topic myself and confirmed my suspicions that, as in the video, Emoto does nothing to reference or substantiate his claims. There is strong evidence that his "scientific" experiments are anything but. I can now say with conviction that I am happy to be closed to this idea, because I have determined it to be almost certainly false. I could have spent the time on far more substantial ideas. So does this suggest that I am too open-minded or too closed-minded? My friend, of course, thinks that I am even more closed-minded that I attempted to see things from an alternative angle. A similar thing happened to me recently when a friend showed me the internet movie Zeitgeist. I watched, I was skeptic, I researched, and was derided for doing the research because being "open-minded" meant taking this trash at face value. Perhaps in both these cases, my research was biased because of my initial skepticism of these ideas. What are your thoughts on open-mindedness?

Banno
Old goat

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

Total Topics: 109
Total Posts: 6186

Posted 04/20/09 - 05:35 PM:	#2
If you keep your mind too open, other people will fill it with garbage.
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

Con3593
Kiddo

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 17, 2009
Location: Baltimore, MD

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 14

Posted 04/20/09 - 06:08 PM:	#3
I think it is important to remain somewhere inbetween. If one is completely open minded, as said before, you will very possibly be lead astray by lies and half truths. If one remains completely closed minded then if they are not correct, they never will learn the truth. One must persist to their current beliefs, yet remain open, and willing to hear other theories, to which you can consider an alternate possibility.

123savethewhales
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 25, 2009

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 326

Posted 04/20/09 - 06:20 PM:	#4
In the face of contradicting views, being open minded to one thing is being close minded to another. Somewhere down the line you have to make a choice if you are to believe in anything at all.
Keep it simple.

Banno
Old goat

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

Total Topics: 109
Total Posts: 6186

Posted 04/21/09 - 01:44 PM:	#5
It's simply a question of filtering out the garbage. Philosophy, done well, is an excellent garbage filter.
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

180 Proof
kynic

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 27, 2003
Location: NOTHINGlifeNOTHING

Total Topics: 84
Total Posts: 5051

Posted 04/21/09 - 02:38 PM:	#6
Banno wrote: Philosophy, done well, is an excellent garbage filter. Gotta steal that one!
The question isn't "Which explanations do I believe?" but rather "Which explanations do I least disbelieve?" Absence of evidence THAT MUST BE THERE (i.e. implied by any claim, concept, or (its) predicates, that affects changes in/to the world) entails evidence of absence. [What cannot be done?[What cannot be hoped?[What cannot be known?]]]

Banno
Old goat

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

Total Topics: 109
Total Posts: 6186

Posted 04/21/09 - 02:49 PM:	#7
180 Proof wrote: Gotta steal that one! Fine, but remember the corollary: philosophy, done badly, is garbage.
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

180 Proof
kynic

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 27, 2003
Location: NOTHINGlifeNOTHING

Total Topics: 84
Total Posts: 5051

Posted 04/21/09 - 03:00 PM:	#8
Banno wrote: Fine, but remember the corollary: philosophy, done badly, is garbage. Goes without saying, B.
The question isn't "Which explanations do I believe?" but rather "Which explanations do I least disbelieve?" Absence of evidence THAT MUST BE THERE (i.e. implied by any claim, concept, or (its) predicates, that affects changes in/to the world) entails evidence of absence. [What cannot be done?[What cannot be hoped?[What cannot be known?]]]

anglo beast child
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 21, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 2

Posted 04/21/09 - 10:20 PM:	#9
ducttape wrote: Perhaps in both these cases, my research was biased because of my initial skepticism of these ideas. I would say this is probably true, given your rhetoric of "trash," "idiot," etc. That's not a bad thing, necessarily, but it points to at least two things, probably: 1) we are always loaded down with our previous experience/personalities, and this affects all of our choices and what we choose to believe; and 2) a much larger context we should consider when thinking about how we sift through facts and order them. Despite the best effort to be "open-minded" or rational, we are bound to our specific social, historical, biological etc. situations. To assume even for argument's sake that there are ultimate sorts of truths seems to me to be an exercise in argument alone, not truth-acquiring. Even the easy stuff ends up being subject to debate, to perception. I agree with you and a previous poster that open/closed isn't either/or-- but both/and. ducttape wrote: As we gain knowledge, so does our individual perception of reality expand. I agree with this. But is "knowledge" necessarily a "true" thing? The Knowledge you have now of Zeitgeist, water-crystal-stuff-- isn't that knowledge? /first post-- seems like a neat forum.

Banno
Old goat

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

Total Topics: 109
Total Posts: 6186

Posted 04/21/09 - 10:48 PM:	#10
anglo beast child wrote: ...But is "knowledge" necessarily a "true" thing? The Knowledge you have now of Zeitgeist, water-crystal-stuff-- isn't that knowledge? /first post-- seems like a neat forum. Welcome. In order to be knowledge, shouldn't it at least be true?
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

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6

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