The Happy Sceptic: Closed-minded my arse

'Closed-minded' My Arse

Believers are particularly fond of accusing sceptics of being closed-minded. It's their save-all phrase: their last line of defence. The moment you suggest that their explanation of a certain phenomenon might not be the most parsimonious, they jump down your throat: "You're so closed-minded! You claim to be sceptical and have an open mind, but you're just closed-minded!". What they really mean is: "You're a bit too well-informed for me and don't accept everything I say without question. I am not able to rebut your arguments because I have been spoon-fed dogmatic pap all my life and do not know how to think for myself. But the simple fact that you have a contrary position makes me uncomfortable and defensive". Of course, "You're closed-minded" is easier to say.

Believers are funny bunch. If you share their beliefs then you too are a very special person. Voice uncertainty and you risk being pitied, because you could be as enlightened as them if only you would open your mind a bit more. Should you take the heretical step, however, of suggesting that there is no evidence to support their belief, and that there are much simpler explanations for that particular phenomenon, then you risk being slated as an orthodox science groupie, stuck in the rut of an anachronistic paradigm.

They will then typically go on to accuse you of conspiring with the the scientific community to prevent some world-shattering paradigm shift, because you are all obviously frightened of what this would entail. This is wishful thinking (it's actually a load of paranoid bollocks when you think about it). Typically, the believer will now launch into their stock spiel about how Galileo's radical ideas were repressed by the orthodox establishment blah blah blah. To which I would reply: "Alas, to wear the mantle of Galileo it is not enough that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment, you must also be right." (Robert L. Park). Or to paraphrase Carl Sagan - they may indeed have laughed at Galileo, but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. (If I was feeling less poetic, however, I might just say "Stop talking shite".)

Paranoia aside, the believer's main mistake here is that they misunderstand (deliberately or otherwise) what it means to have an open mind. It does not mean accepting everything that is thrown at you. As Robert Carroll points out:

"Being open-minded does not mean that one has an obligation to examine every crackpot idea or claim made."

For example, say someone tells me that they have seen a ghost. Now, over time I have come across many such claims from many sources. Remember - these are extraordinary claims, which, if true, would violate the known laws of science. Yet there is not one shred of evidence to back them up. So at some point in my life I therefore came to the rational conclusion that there were no such things as ghosts. This conclusion was based upon a lot of experience and a lot of evidence (or lack of it).

But I was never closed-minded to the possibility that ghost existed. On the contrary - I used to believe in them. As a kid I was brainwashed by adults via books, TV, the press etc. to believe that ghosts were a natural phenomenon - a fact. At that time I didn't have the wherewithal or the mindset to think for myself. But I've grown up.

So I'm not being closed-minded if I don't believe that this person actually did see a ghost, because I have already come to a rational, informed decision on the subject. Of course, the person in question may feel slighted, because it appears that I have dismissed their particular belief/theory/claim out-of-hand. They may counter that I "was not there so I can't know for sure", or that I "can't prove that ghosts don't exist". Such arguments are irrelevant (as well as fallacious). To make me reconsider my position, all I ask is for some evidence. Just a wee bit.

Forgive me if I don't discard all of my rational thought processes in a quivering fit of epiphany and swan-dive into the cess pool of your ignorance. Bleating that I am closed-minded because I do not spend half my life researching your latest New Age, 'paradigm-shifting' theory just isn't good enough I'm afraid. Remember - the burden of proof is with the claimant, no matter how much you would like to shift this.

In reality, it is the believers who are closed-minded in that their beliefs are unreasoned and unfalsifiable. So why are they so defensive if they cannot be disproved? Bertrand Russell had them sussed:

"There is something feeble and a little contemptible about a man who cannot face the perils of life without the help of comfortable myths. Almost inevitably some part of him is aware that they are myths and that he believes them only because they are comforting. But he dare not face this thought! Moreover, since he is aware, however dimly, that his opinions are not rational, he becomes furious when they are disputed."

[home] [rants] [YTCB] [manifesto] [quotations] [links] [FAQ] [email]