Heisenberg
Well-Known Member
Full article: http://www.knigel.net/opening-minds-with-minimal-fatalities-an-argument-for-skepticism/
People rarely accuse skeptics of being too open-minded.
Instead, when Sylvia Brown or another self-proclaimed psychic alleges supernatural vision, advocates dismiss any and all doubt as symptoms of close-mindedness. Stereotypically, the image of an open-minded person does not include lab coats, telescopes, or Bunsen burners so much as tie-dyed shirts, tarot cards, and crystals. Skepticism and open-mindedness, perhaps counter-intuitively, are not antonyms, but instead complementary. In fact, advocates of fringe fields such as astrology, parapsychology, or alternative health are often associated with open minds, but many of their techniques are nothing short of doors shutting in the mind. Besides the few who take a more scientific approach, such fringe groups tend to create closed cultures hindering investigation and questioning. Scientific skepticism, on the other hand, encourages an open culture promoting investigation and questioning. Arguably, a person is open-minded if and only if that person can remain receptive to new ideas while also not allowing prejudice to interfere with considering such new ideas. If open-mindedness is the ability to remain receptive to new ideas, and to consider such ideas without prejudice, then skepticism is the ideal example of an open-minded endeavour.
The Oxford Dictionary defines open-minded as willing to consider new ideas; unprejudiced. Merriam-Webster puts forth receptive to arguments or ideas. Cambridge offers the definition as willing to consider ideas and opinions that are new or different to your own. Collectively, these examples define open-mindedness as receptivity to arguments and ideas. For clarification, to consider a new idea, one must set aside prejudices; however, there is not, in these definitions, a demand to change an opinion automatically or blindly.
the elevator pitch definition of skepticism provides a brief summary as to why skepticism is important and useful to the community: Skepticism is the intersection of science education and consumer protection. We help people learn from science to avoid spending their money on products and services that do not work (Farley, n.d.). Admittedly, Farleys definition lacks the important aspect of skepticism that is not only about the market place, but also for knowledge for its own sake. Skepticism is an effective thinking tool that helps separate the likely untrue claims from the more likely true. The ability to suspend and evaluate claims systematically functions to increase or decrease confidence. Not only does skepticism offer a means to protect consumers financially, but also increases resistance of all people against harmful information and mistaken ideas.
Such suspension, however, should not be confused with denialism or cynicism. Both denialism and cynicism resort to unreceptive prejudice to new ideas. Denialism, for example, disregards established results; therefore, someone exhibiting denialism no longer suspends judgement and instead relies on prejudice. Denialism hinders receptiveness to ideas and arguments. Mark Hoofnagle describes denialism as the employment of rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none (2007). He provides five tactics denialists use in maintaining appearance of legitimate controversy (Hoofnagle, 2009):
By using the tactics of this list, denialists defend preconceived notions through irrational means rather than maintaining an inductive attitude. Cynicism, similarly, is perhaps what people usually think of when they claim that skeptics are closed-minded. Cynics refuse to consider alternate possibilities to preconceived notions. Cynicism and denialism are closely related since they both use preconceived notions to inoculate beliefs against new information.
Pseudoscience fails to meet the aforementioned criteria of open-mindedness, and runs parallel to cynicism and denialism. Derry (1999) gives five defining characteristics of pseudoscience:
If these are the defining characteristics of pseudoscience, the criteria run contrary to ideas of open-mindedness and Polyas inductive attitude. Static ideas, for instance, are the defining example of closed-mindedness and contradict Hares criticism of absolutist thinking. An individual, furthermore, cannot be receptive to an idea if the original idea randomly changes before undergoing evaluation. With vague mechanisms to acquire understanding, one is unlikely to truly appreciate an idea. If terms are overly general and non-specific, superficial appearances of understanding are deceptive. If skepticism is disorganized, worthwhile ideas may be rejected and not so worthwhile ideas may be accepted. Easily understood, and more pleasant, ideas are more likely to be accepted rather than ideas more likely to be true. Lastly, by disregarding established results, one is no longer receptive to the idea since, at best, data is cherry-picked to support prejudice.
Full article: http://www.knigel.net/opening-minds-with-minimal-fatalities-an-argument-for-skepticism/
People rarely accuse skeptics of being too open-minded.
Instead, when Sylvia Brown or another self-proclaimed psychic alleges supernatural vision, advocates dismiss any and all doubt as symptoms of close-mindedness. Stereotypically, the image of an open-minded person does not include lab coats, telescopes, or Bunsen burners so much as tie-dyed shirts, tarot cards, and crystals. Skepticism and open-mindedness, perhaps counter-intuitively, are not antonyms, but instead complementary. In fact, advocates of fringe fields such as astrology, parapsychology, or alternative health are often associated with open minds, but many of their techniques are nothing short of doors shutting in the mind. Besides the few who take a more scientific approach, such fringe groups tend to create closed cultures hindering investigation and questioning. Scientific skepticism, on the other hand, encourages an open culture promoting investigation and questioning. Arguably, a person is open-minded if and only if that person can remain receptive to new ideas while also not allowing prejudice to interfere with considering such new ideas. If open-mindedness is the ability to remain receptive to new ideas, and to consider such ideas without prejudice, then skepticism is the ideal example of an open-minded endeavour.
The Oxford Dictionary defines open-minded as willing to consider new ideas; unprejudiced. Merriam-Webster puts forth receptive to arguments or ideas. Cambridge offers the definition as willing to consider ideas and opinions that are new or different to your own. Collectively, these examples define open-mindedness as receptivity to arguments and ideas. For clarification, to consider a new idea, one must set aside prejudices; however, there is not, in these definitions, a demand to change an opinion automatically or blindly.
the elevator pitch definition of skepticism provides a brief summary as to why skepticism is important and useful to the community: Skepticism is the intersection of science education and consumer protection. We help people learn from science to avoid spending their money on products and services that do not work (Farley, n.d.). Admittedly, Farleys definition lacks the important aspect of skepticism that is not only about the market place, but also for knowledge for its own sake. Skepticism is an effective thinking tool that helps separate the likely untrue claims from the more likely true. The ability to suspend and evaluate claims systematically functions to increase or decrease confidence. Not only does skepticism offer a means to protect consumers financially, but also increases resistance of all people against harmful information and mistaken ideas.
Such suspension, however, should not be confused with denialism or cynicism. Both denialism and cynicism resort to unreceptive prejudice to new ideas. Denialism, for example, disregards established results; therefore, someone exhibiting denialism no longer suspends judgement and instead relies on prejudice. Denialism hinders receptiveness to ideas and arguments. Mark Hoofnagle describes denialism as the employment of rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none (2007). He provides five tactics denialists use in maintaining appearance of legitimate controversy (Hoofnagle, 2009):
- Conspiracy theories
- Cherry picking
- False experts
- Moving the goal posts
- Other logical fallacies
By using the tactics of this list, denialists defend preconceived notions through irrational means rather than maintaining an inductive attitude. Cynicism, similarly, is perhaps what people usually think of when they claim that skeptics are closed-minded. Cynics refuse to consider alternate possibilities to preconceived notions. Cynicism and denialism are closely related since they both use preconceived notions to inoculate beliefs against new information.
Pseudoscience fails to meet the aforementioned criteria of open-mindedness, and runs parallel to cynicism and denialism. Derry (1999) gives five defining characteristics of pseudoscience:
- Static or randomly changing ideas
- Vague mechanisms to acquire understanding
- Loosely connected thoughts
- Lack of organised skepticism
- Disregard of established results
If these are the defining characteristics of pseudoscience, the criteria run contrary to ideas of open-mindedness and Polyas inductive attitude. Static ideas, for instance, are the defining example of closed-mindedness and contradict Hares criticism of absolutist thinking. An individual, furthermore, cannot be receptive to an idea if the original idea randomly changes before undergoing evaluation. With vague mechanisms to acquire understanding, one is unlikely to truly appreciate an idea. If terms are overly general and non-specific, superficial appearances of understanding are deceptive. If skepticism is disorganized, worthwhile ideas may be rejected and not so worthwhile ideas may be accepted. Easily understood, and more pleasant, ideas are more likely to be accepted rather than ideas more likely to be true. Lastly, by disregarding established results, one is no longer receptive to the idea since, at best, data is cherry-picked to support prejudice.
Full article: http://www.knigel.net/opening-minds-with-minimal-fatalities-an-argument-for-skepticism/
