An open mind

This post is in reference to a member telling another member of which I share similar views that they weren't worthy of a debate because he didn't have an "open mind". That one statement bothered me enough to the point of writing this post regarding my view of open-mindedness.


Quite often, we are told, that we must have an "open mind". This is usually dictated to us by someone who is attempting to argue (either directly or indirectly) a belief that they know we are likely to reject as sounding preposterous. What then IS an open-mind other than a likelihood to accept something that your natural instincts tell you is wrong?
A scientific mind will analyze facts and change what it states as true as the truth develops. This can be disconcerting for some who grow accustomed to certain ways of thinking - but the whole meaning of progress is that you are never going to stay in the same place for very long. To stay in one place is to stagnate. If science had ever stopped questing for answers as to how, why, and what, we would still be living in the stone age to the ripe old age of twenty-something, provided we weren't cut short by some nasty disease or bacterial infection. It managed to overcome these things by investigating the mystery. There were observations, research, testing, and conclusions drawn up that were PROVEN by observable evidence to be true that has taken us from scribbling on cave walls with charcoal to exploring the outer reaches of our solar system. Facts do not require an open mind. They require nothing at all of themselves for they are what they are. Denial of proven, demonstrable facts shows nothing but ignorance. What then, is denial of unproven claims? Upon what basis is the denial of these claims asserted? If I tell you that invisible giant flying unicorns form the clouds in the sky with their magical horns, would you accept it? Wouldn't you be prompted to research the topic of cloud formation to see if my claim had any validity, assuming you didn't instantly dismiss the idea as sheer stupdity? When you presented me with the fact that clouds form because of accumulations of water vapor, wind currents, temperature...etc, and THEN I said "YES, that's EXACTLY how they do it with their horns...they manipulate water molecules in the air" - would that make my claim valid in any sense? No, it wouldn't. You would assume that I was out of my freaking mind, and continue in the belief that clouds form as they do because of the variables I mentioned before. There would be no reason to inject a gmfu into the equation because it's participation wouldn't be necessary for cloud formation. A scientific method applied to it would not disprove the existence of the gmfu. Only with an "open mind" can you accept it's existence.
People often accuse me of being closed minded when I deny belief in god. As if their particular god is the only one that has ever been conjured up by the human imagination - they don't see me as closed minded when I refute the existence of Zeus, Apollo, Saturn, Aphrodite..etc - that's logical. You're got to have an open mind about it, they say, which in reality means I should just believe it and stop questioning it. That's what "open mindedness" really is - believing without seeing, believing without proof. It is not the same thing as progressive knowledge, although that sometimes might require a little "out of the box" thinking and proof sometimes is indirect - such as the existence of black holes and/or atoms. Just because they can't be seen doesn't mean they don't exist. Their existence can be proven by various scientific methods - there is no need to accept it with an "open-mind", just review the facts and the math. This is in stark contrast to the gmfu, for which there is no such test.
Your mind, next to your life, is undoubtedly the greatest tool you will ever possess. Although imperfect, and prone to temporary failure for no apparent reason, it serves us quite well for the most part. We might curse it whenever we forget to mail that important letter, or we can't find the #(*&# car keys for the third time this week - but we don't even notice as it processes millions upon millions of snippets of data collected by our eyes, ears and skin, nor are we full-time aware of it running our life support system. I guess the whole point of this discourse is to encourage readers to question everything. There may be questions you have that you never get an answer for, but for those that you DO get answered - accept the facts. Don't be encouraged to accept some ridiculous supposition as unicorns creating clouds under the ruse of having an "open-mind" How many times do you have to flip the light switch to be convinced that it doesn't work? Once? A dozen? What's the first thing someone else will do when you tell them the switch doesn't work? They're going to flip it too, until they arrive at the same conclusion you did. Rarely would they ever apply an "open-mind" approach to the situation and just take your word for it, regardless. I don't need an open mind when I throw popcorn in the microwave. I don't need it as I'm sitting here typing this rather lengthy post. I won't need it if I'm going to fly from Orlando to Seattle - so why would I need it if I am facing another situation that someone is declaring to me is factual? It's because the FACTS will never change whether I believe in them or not. A toddler can jam a fork into an electrical outlet and receive a nasty shock without having ever heard the word 'electrocution', much less having any knowledge or belief in voltage and amperage. Why then would you need an open mind when discussing anything of a spiritual nature? It's either factual, not factual, or a partial truth.
I've written far more than I intended, and for that I apologize. Above all, I encourage each of you to exercise caution with "open-mind" experiences. It is almost indistinguishable from gullibility.

Thefreedictionary disagree's with your definition of "open mind".

Receptive to new and different ideas or the opinions of others.

Also:

having a mind receptive to new ideas, arguments, etc.; unprejudiced

It looks to me as though having an open mind can be a good thing as long as you have your critical faculties in place as well.

Just my thoughts, but it sounds like what you are being told, is that you are unwilling to consider ideas outside of your personal paradigm.

Originally posted by sykickvision
I guess the whole point of this discourse is to encourage readers to question everything.

That's what it means to have an open mind. Question everything external and internal. Realizing that we most likely know next to nothing makes it a little easier. It's probably some part of the ego that demands we live in world where everything is concrete. For all we know physics could be malleable changing ever so slightly every 26,000 years.

reply to post by ScRuFFy63


I wasn't arguing the definition of open-mindedness. My entire post was regarding what open-mindedness has come to mean in various circles.
Scientific reason can be said to be open-minded in the aspect of that definition, yet it always demands proof, not just a willingness to believe it's true.
I would agree there are aspects of my personal paradigm that I'm more firmly rooted in than others, but only because I've never been convinced otherwise.