Ooh, I just love it when someone says something so brilliantly, it makes me think, "I could have said that myself!" (if I was that brilliant)
Case in point: a wonderful YouTube video about open-mindedness that I learned about via Pharyngula, where blogger PZ Myers titled his post "Something a few of our commenters ought to watch."
My sentiments exactly.
It amuses me when fundamentalists wander onto this blog and start preaching, "Your skepticism is the real fundamentalism!"
That doesn't make any sense, except in their twisted, tortured, thought-disordered illogic. I try to respond with reasonable statements like "not believing isn't a belief system."
But like they say, a picture can be worth a thousand words.
So maybe the YouTube video on open-mindedness will bring some fresh air to shuttered psyches. I'll embed it at the end of this post -- after sharing ten images from the video that appealed to me.
(click to enlarge)
Here's the basic fallacy: that not believing in pseudo-science or unproven metaphysics shows that the skeptic is closed-minded.
If supernatural is jumped to as the reason for something unexplained, this closes off other explanations prematurely. Plus, it really isn't an explanation.
The unexplained simply is unexplained. It isn't "spiritual," "God," "quantum phenomena," or anything else. Just a question mark.
If you don't believe something because there's no evidence for it, you aren't saying that thing can't ever be proven to be true. For now, though, you've a skeptic.
Those who are skeptical about science's skepticism are indeed two-faced. They're prone to gullible belief in really weird stuff, but won't believe in the scientific method -- which is a lot more believable.
Great point: if you let all kinds of fanciful crap into your mind, there isn't going to be any way to sort out reality from illusion. People in mental hospitals are open-minded in that sense. They're also insane.
People are free to believe whatever they like. But other people are equally free to challenge reasons for those beliefs. That's what happens on this blog. If you don't like to be challenged, don't spout unproven beliefs.
If someone expects that their beliefs will be accepted on a just because, that indeed is the height of arrogance. Strangely, often these people claim to be humbly religious.
Right on: someone with an unproven notion should be trying to find demonstrable evidence for it, not demanding that others accept it uncritically.
Final image says it all... "An open mind that demands no evidence will let in an awful lot of rubbish." So to be a productively open-minded person, you've got to filter what's allowed into your belief system.
Here's the video:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Brian,
Is there a written transcript of the Open Mindedness video? Would be nice to obtain, segments of such, for use in future comments.
Roger, I suspect you'd have to make your own transcript. You might ask your question via a comment on the video. The maker of it likely would see the comment/question and could respond. His YouTube "web site" is here: http://www.youtube.com/user/QualiaSoup
There are links to quite a few other videos, most of which look interesting. Haven't had a chance to check them out yet.
Interesting video and about the only place i disagreed with him was on the science saying that it is always open to new experiments, new concepts. That is how it should be but not how it has been in history and often is not today. Unfortunately scientists can get a stake in it being one truth or one theory and not be open to evidence that conflicts it. We are all human and setting science up as the god, when it's run by humans, leaves one open to the same stumbling block; but otherwise, his ideas seemed logical-- to me.
When someone is a fundamentalist (on anything) is when they have made up their mind what is true and there is no room to consider any new ideas, when anything new is thrown out if it didn't fit what they already believed.
Rain, I understand what you're saying about science seemingly not being open to new concepts. But I think this is much more the result of what the video talks about: the need to have substantial evidence before accepting a hypothesis as true. If this isn't done, then all sorts of weird notions get accepted prematurely, as the video says.
Plus, scientists get rewarded, big time, for coming up with groundbreaking discoveries. Like, with a Nobel prize. So I never can understand why some people claim that scientists aren't open to new ideas.
New ideas is how successful scientific careers are made. Fame, money, and such come along with discovering something that nobody else has recognized before.
The first scientist to prove ESP, or life after death, or the existence of a universal cosmic consciousness would enjoy amazing acclaim. So I think we need to recognize that lots of incentives exist for scientists to be open-minded.
Again, though... being excessively open-minded and turning gullible is a good way to demonstrate your lack of scientific credentials. Thus a necessary tension exists, as the video nicely showed, between keeping one's mind open, yet not letting every strange idea take uncritical root in it.
Excellant point. That is why the scientific method stands out for me. The method can stand on it's own. Hopefully, if the method is properly used, the corrupted so-called scientist can be weeded out, or exposed.
The problem with science today is much of it is being funded by those with an economic ax to grind. It's not how it should be but it's how it often is. Having family members in the world of innovation, patents, new developments, I hear a lot about the limitations placed on new ideas. It's like the field of medicine. There is often a lot of money to be made by keeping things as they are.
One of the big problems for science today (in my opinion)is much research is funded by industries who have no interest in open exploration and will ignore or tweak results to keep them as they want. Pure research isn't always the norm. It's not hard to look back in history and see the same problems.
Yes, Roger, and I think it's one thing government should be helping to have happen-- pure science, discovery and openness to where it leads. When corporations pay universities to do that, they usually have an ulterior motive which is to make money. It's not like that's wrong for them to do either; but it means another source has to fund pure science on the highest levels, the kind the ordinary person could not do out of curiosity. Although it's amazing the number of tools you can buy today through venues like EBay where you can get the kind of tools that once only highly expensive research labs could have afforded.
Rains' last paragraph at 9:22 adds alot. Fundamentalist is someone who holds extreme views and books no alternative (whether it be scientific or religious).
Belief systems can roughly be split into: scientific, philosophical, religious.
Science offers objective validation involving a testable hypothesis. This standard is high and so it has its limits.
Philosophy only needs the hypothesis, not the testable objectivity, it thus is more open to the subjective beliefs of the philosopher himself. Philosophies are held onto longer, since they're more vague, subjective and harder to falsify.
Religion requires neither proof nor thought - simply faith. The religious hold their beliefs even more firmly cos they're married to their belief and it cannot be disproved, its faith.
Mysticism, Mythology, the esoteric and the paranormal are probaly lumped into religion, but some will argue perhaps their's fall into philosophy.
One thing history's shown is that no wars have been fought in the name of science.
This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment
The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.
As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.
Brian,
Is there a written transcript of the Open Mindedness video? Would be nice to obtain, segments of such, for use in future comments.
Thanks,
Roger
Posted by: Roger | April 07, 2009 at 08:40 AM
Roger, I suspect you'd have to make your own transcript. You might ask your question via a comment on the video. The maker of it likely would see the comment/question and could respond. His YouTube "web site" is here:
http://www.youtube.com/user/QualiaSoup
There are links to quite a few other videos, most of which look interesting. Haven't had a chance to check them out yet.
Posted by: Brian | April 07, 2009 at 09:07 AM
Interesting video and about the only place i disagreed with him was on the science saying that it is always open to new experiments, new concepts. That is how it should be but not how it has been in history and often is not today. Unfortunately scientists can get a stake in it being one truth or one theory and not be open to evidence that conflicts it. We are all human and setting science up as the god, when it's run by humans, leaves one open to the same stumbling block; but otherwise, his ideas seemed logical-- to me.
When someone is a fundamentalist (on anything) is when they have made up their mind what is true and there is no room to consider any new ideas, when anything new is thrown out if it didn't fit what they already believed.
Posted by: Rain | April 07, 2009 at 09:22 AM
Rain, I understand what you're saying about science seemingly not being open to new concepts. But I think this is much more the result of what the video talks about: the need to have substantial evidence before accepting a hypothesis as true. If this isn't done, then all sorts of weird notions get accepted prematurely, as the video says.
Plus, scientists get rewarded, big time, for coming up with groundbreaking discoveries. Like, with a Nobel prize. So I never can understand why some people claim that scientists aren't open to new ideas.
New ideas is how successful scientific careers are made. Fame, money, and such come along with discovering something that nobody else has recognized before.
The first scientist to prove ESP, or life after death, or the existence of a universal cosmic consciousness would enjoy amazing acclaim. So I think we need to recognize that lots of incentives exist for scientists to be open-minded.
Again, though... being excessively open-minded and turning gullible is a good way to demonstrate your lack of scientific credentials. Thus a necessary tension exists, as the video nicely showed, between keeping one's mind open, yet not letting every strange idea take uncritical root in it.
Posted by: Brian | April 07, 2009 at 09:47 AM
Rain,
Excellant point. That is why the scientific method stands out for me. The method can stand on it's own. Hopefully, if the method is properly used, the corrupted so-called scientist can be weeded out, or exposed.
Best wishes,
Roger
Posted by: Roger | April 07, 2009 at 09:51 AM
The problem with science today is much of it is being funded by those with an economic ax to grind. It's not how it should be but it's how it often is. Having family members in the world of innovation, patents, new developments, I hear a lot about the limitations placed on new ideas. It's like the field of medicine. There is often a lot of money to be made by keeping things as they are.
One of the big problems for science today (in my opinion)is much research is funded by industries who have no interest in open exploration and will ignore or tweak results to keep them as they want. Pure research isn't always the norm. It's not hard to look back in history and see the same problems.
Posted by: Rain | April 07, 2009 at 10:32 AM
Rain,
Maybe, One could distinguish "corrupted" science from "pure" science.
Pure science is what I prefer to focus on.
The mentioned Video, does a good job of discussing all the issues at hand.
If there is no transcript, One can add it as a "favorite" on their YouTube account.
Posted by: Roger | April 07, 2009 at 10:54 AM
Yes, Roger, and I think it's one thing government should be helping to have happen-- pure science, discovery and openness to where it leads. When corporations pay universities to do that, they usually have an ulterior motive which is to make money. It's not like that's wrong for them to do either; but it means another source has to fund pure science on the highest levels, the kind the ordinary person could not do out of curiosity. Although it's amazing the number of tools you can buy today through venues like EBay where you can get the kind of tools that once only highly expensive research labs could have afforded.
Posted by: Rain | April 07, 2009 at 12:05 PM
Rains' last paragraph at 9:22 adds alot. Fundamentalist is someone who holds extreme views and books no alternative (whether it be scientific or religious).
Belief systems can roughly be split into: scientific, philosophical, religious.
Science offers objective validation involving a testable hypothesis. This standard is high and so it has its limits.
Philosophy only needs the hypothesis, not the testable objectivity, it thus is more open to the subjective beliefs of the philosopher himself. Philosophies are held onto longer, since they're more vague, subjective and harder to falsify.
Religion requires neither proof nor thought - simply faith. The religious hold their beliefs even more firmly cos they're married to their belief and it cannot be disproved, its faith.
Mysticism, Mythology, the esoteric and the paranormal are probaly lumped into religion, but some will argue perhaps their's fall into philosophy.
One thing history's shown is that no wars have been fought in the name of science.
Posted by: George | April 07, 2009 at 03:25 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoqUwyHseg4
Posted by: tAo | April 08, 2009 at 12:29 PM
Thanks tAo. We all roared with laughter.
Posted by: Catherine | April 09, 2009 at 11:19 PM