We the open-minded

[The_Corinthian]

I've quickly come to realise on this forum, that while some Skeptics here think the same as me, others do not.

I get really sick of people who believe in psychics, mediums, UFOs, ghosts, etc. saying to me, "you should be open minded about it".

As a Skeptic I consider myself far more open minded than these people, as not only will I not accept their beliefs as fact, I look for alternative answers, but never entirely rule out the possibility that they may be right. To be skeptical is to doubt.

However, there's a few people I've crossed swords with on here, who act no differently from avid believers in the paranormal. They are unshakable in their opinions, and are not even prepared to allow any room for doubt, even when they are not in full possession of the facts.

Shouldn't any good Skeptic allow for Skepticism, even in their own beliefs?

As Rudyard Kipling said:
"If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you
But make allowance for their doubting too"

[Muttley]

Have you read John's excellent and concise page on "the open mind", and the distinction between open-mindedness and credulity?

http://www.skeptics.org.uk/article.php?dir=articles&article=the_open_mind.php

[Lord Muck oGentry]

TC,

I know that Blake is a dangerous man to quote in a company of skeptics- but bugger it!

" Opposition is true friendship."

Skeptics don't always agree with one another, so don't take offence if they don't agree with you.

Oh, I almost forgot to say- welcome! :-)

[SimonC]

To be skeptical is to doubt.


Shouldn't any good Skeptic allow for Skepticism, even in their own beliefs

I doubt it. ;D

Btw - interesting topic of conversation, Corinthian ( as a 'newbie' here, I guess I should probably let the thread develop a little before wading in with my own thoughts ).

[BillB]

Hi,

Being out spoken I found John Jackson’s “The Open Mind” to be a speculative generalisation and nothing more.

Perhaps we should consider the mind or should I say the mindset of people that make such sweeping statements?

BillB ;)

[BillB]

Hi,

Corinthian
As a Skeptic I consider myself far more open minded than these people, as not only will I not accept their beliefs as fact, I look for alternative answers, but never entirely rule out the possibility that they may be right. To be skeptical is to doubt.

Really ? ? ? ? ? ?

Corinthian
However, there's a few people I've crossed swords with on here, who act no differently from avid believers in the paranormal. They are unshakable in their opinions, and are not even prepared to allow any room for doubt, even when they are not in full possession of the facts.

So what makes you any different to these alleged unshakable in opinion type people? :cheesy:

Is Muttley really a Sheep Dog? ;D

BillB :smiley:

[ZERO]

I am very willing to change my views on science matters. Scientists are not infalible and if a theory different to one I accept is explained with all the evidence, reproducable results etc, etc, I will believe it. Or at least accept it's possibility.
When it comes to boogey men and astrology and such, I have no room for change. Time after time these things are proven to be rubbish.
So I guess I'm open to reason but closed to fancy.

[BillB]

Zero: Do you think Muttley is really a Sheep Dog, because it seems to wag its tail rather a lot? You might understand them Sheep Dogs from being down under, but I guess it’s very much high-tech these day’s, with the poor dingo being replaced by the whirlybird!! ;) ;) :cheesy:

[ZERO]

Zero: Do you think Muttley is really a Sheep Dog

To what do you refer?
Muttley the cartoon character or Muttley the member?:eek3:

[BillB]

Metaphorically speaking!! :smiley:

[Muttley]

Being out spoken I found John Jackson’s “The Open Mind” to be a speculative generalisation and nothing more.

???

I'd say it seeks to make a simple but important point, and does so with clarity.

Unlike "Being out spoken". Do you mean "outspoken", "out-spoken", or some other meaning which has eluded me?


Is Muttley really a Sheep Dog?

Whistle, shout "Come by!", and see what happens.;D

M.

[The_Corinthian]

Hi,

Really ? ? ? ? ? ?

Corinthian

So what makes you any different to these alleged unshakable in opinion type people? :cheesy:



You'll have to point out where I've contradicted myself, because I just can't see it.

[The_Corinthian]

Have you read John's excellent and concise page on "the open mind", and the distinction between open-mindedness and credulity?

http://www.skeptics.org.uk/article.php?dir=articles&article=the_open_mind.php

I hadn't, but I have now and I'd say it very articulately says what I'm saying. Good to know I'm far from alone in thinking this. :)

[MRT]

If someone claims to be in touch with the dead, it is open-minded to consider that their claim might be true. It is also open-minded to consider alternative explanations for what they report. It is then a question of looking at the evidence to see which possibility is most likely. So, you start from an open-minded position and end up with a conclusion based on evidence. If this conclusion is that it is unlikely that the person was really communicating with the dead, this is the point where the claimant may accuse you of having a closed mind. What they are really saying, in effect, is that they disagree with your interpretation of the evidence, which is a different matter entirely.

[BillB]

MRT
If someone claims to be in touch with the dead, it is open-minded to consider that their claim might be true. It is also open-minded to consider alternative explanations for what they report. It is then a question of looking at the evidence to see which possibility is most likely. So, you start from an open-minded position and end up with a conclusion based on evidence. If this conclusion is that it is unlikely that the person was really communicating with the dead, this is the point where the claimant may accuse you of having a closed mind. What they are really saying, in effect, is that they disagree with your interpretation of the evidence, which is a different matter entirely.

Yes I agree but I sometimes wonder if we are (metaphorically speaking) to the dead on this forum? :-\

[ZERO]

If someone claims to be in touch with the dead, it is open-minded to consider that their claim might be true. It is also open-minded to consider alternative explanations for what they report. It is then a question of looking at the evidence to see which possibility is most likely. So, you start from an open-minded position and end up with a conclusion based on evidence. If this conclusion is that it is unlikely that the person was really communicating with the dead, this is the point where the claimant may accuse you of having a closed mind. What they are really saying, in effect, is that they disagree with your interpretation of the evidence, which is a different matter entirely.

Every time a claim like that appears, it is proven false. How many times does something have to be proved before you can accept it as fact.
Some things are not entirely proven, but some things are.
Is it ok to have a closed mind to something that is just false?

[MRT]

The claims keep coming. There has to be a reason for them so all should be investigated. It's not the same, for instance, as an accepted scientific fact. We don't get constant claims that the Earth is flat (though there are a few). The very fact of continuing claims of contact with the dead is worthy of research in itself.

[DaveWood]

The claims keep coming. There has to be a reason for them so all should be investigated. It's not the same, for instance, as an accepted scientific fact. We don't get constant claims that the Earth is flat (though there are a few). The very fact of continuing claims of contact with the dead is worthy of research in itself.

Very true.

Personally I find confirmed belief to be unhelpful, if one is interested in evidence and science.

But it cuts both ways. Plenty of people are, in effective, believers in the idea that all explained experiences are nonsense. This is equally as closed minded and unhelpfully dogmatic as the folk who would never accept evidence against anomalous experience.

In a portion of both cases lack of education and lazy-mindedness is an issue.

There are plenty of paranormalists out there who pretty much refuse to read and to learn. They spend a whole lot of time making mistakes that others have made and written about.

Similarly I've seen some very lazy-minded sceptical forums out there. I've seen so many cries of 'hoax!' to entirely genuine, natural and misattributed events seemingly just because it's the 'non-thinking' easy thing to to.

[Admin]

Every time a claim like that appears, it is proven false. How many times does something have to be proved before you can accept it as fact.

Strictly speaking you never can. This is known as the 'problem of induction'. No matter how many times you observe something you cannot guarantee with 100% certainty that the same thing will happen next time.

There is a form of ancient skepticism known as 'pyrrhonism' which broadly speaking concurs with the view that nothing can be known with absolute certainty therefore no matter how much we think something is true we have to remain doubtful to some extent - anything we think that is true could be false and vice versa.

This position is a rather philosophical one and not particularly practical for most intents and purposes.

This view, of course, lends itself perfectly to things like the paranormal. There's no robust evidence to support any of it being real but if we can never be 100% certain that it's not it's worth it to keep looking, right?

Most people, IMO, who call themselves things like skeptical investigators are pyrrhonists rather than skeptics.

What science and modern skepticism do to get over the 'problem of induction' is to set a 'demarcation line' or threshold beyond which we will accept things as being either true or false with the proviso that such a conclusion is provisional and can be changed with new evidence.

So, if psychics have been tested for telepathic ability (for example) several thousand times and failed, the pyrrhonist would keep on looking (usually because they want to believe it) whereas a skeptic would conclude that this ability is just not real and continuing to search for it would be futile (without good reason like a strong new claim, of course).

The difference is subtle, but to me, the practical stance of science/skepticism is far more useful than the non-committal stance of pyrrhonism.

In answer to the original question, "How many times does something have to be proved before you can accept it as fact?", well, that's actually an arbitrary choice. It depends on the claim being made etc.

The point with skepticism though is that a cut-off point should be decided upon at some level. Exactly how many dowsers need to fail double-blind tests before we conclude that dowsing isn't real? Well, different researchers will have different ideas but there should be a number that we can accept as being sufficient to draw a conclusion.

Look at these statements:
Dowsing remains an unproven ability.
Dowsing is not a real ability.Pyrrhonists would opt for option 1. It's non-committal and, indeed, non-falsifiable. It actually doesn't say much at all.

Skeptics would go for option 2. It's justified (based on the constant failure of dowsers to do what they claim under controlled conditions), it takes a stance and draws a conclusion, and crucially it's a falsifiable statement.

The definition of a scientific statement is that it is falsifiable (capable of being proved wrong if it actually is) and it's skepticism that leads us to scientific conclusions. That is far more useful than being non-committal IMO as well as being far more practical.

[bobdezon]

A true sceptic should always be sceptical of themselves to avoid any bias which may influence any theory or test or opinion they have/perform/construct.

A true sceptic should also be sceptical of all other sceptics.

A true sceptic realises that there are many different levels of scepticism, from basic to so advanced it borders on exotic theoretic scepticism.

A true sceptic is aware that although many people claim to be sceptics, not all can be justifiably classed as such.

A true sceptics dinner is always cold.........................;)