Real Open-mindedness and Skepticism

[_bcspace]

-> This <- short educational video is probably the best synopsis of open-mindedness and skepticism I've ever seen. This is what every religious/supernaturalist person should watch (and I wish would understand). I think some do understand, but soooo many don't.

I watched it. I understand it. I remain completely open minded and TBM. I did find it biased in it's assumption that religous thinking almost automatically leads to closed mindedness. In my experience, the nonreligionist is just as likely to be subject to this, even those claiming to be scientific, which I also claim for myself.

[_marg]

I remain completely open minded and TBM.

The key is not being open minded, the key is being open to new information and/or willing to change one's mind upon evidence and or reasoning which warrants it. And generally religious individuals do not hold that attitude with regards to their religious beliefs, though that isn't something he brought up, but you are. I doubt very much you have an open mind to evidence and reasoning against your religious beliefs.

I did find it biased in it's assumption that religous thinking almost automatically leads to closed mindedness.

Where did he make such a claim in the video? What he did say is that a belief in a non scientific concept does not make one automatically open-minded. He then went on to give an example of a neighbour who seeing a lamp shade move said it must have been done by a ghost. With such an assumption for which there is no evidence and without critically thinking of possible alternatives, he said it may lead one to being closed minded. And I agree. I notice that people who believe based on wishful thinking, their beliefs appeal to them, are resistant to criticism or to skeptical rejection of those beliefs because evidence is lacking. He did not say though that non scientific beliefs definitely leads one to being closedminded.

In my experience, the nonreligionist is just as likely to be subject to this, even those claiming to be scientific, which I also claim for myself.

The talk he gave didn't mention religionist versus non religionist, but in one cartoon he did mention in the writing "atheist". At times he was talking from his perspective, I take it that he's an atheist, but I didn't get the impression he was suggesting atheism leads to open mindedness, or good critical thinking. In his talk he was saying science, the scientific method or process is one which is open to new ideas, to revising and/or changing upon evidence and reasoning which warrants is open minded and this approach by science advances our understanding about the reality in which we exist.

[_Tiktaalik]

Wow, I find it extremely annoying that the board insists on changing "A-l-r-i-g-h-t" to "all right".

Why? You should be happy about it.

This is taking grammar nazism to an entirely new level (and not even getting the capitalisation right in the process).

To get the capitalization right, type the two words "All right," in that order, as the first words of your sentence. For example, you could type your sentence:

"All right, I'll have a go at it."

. . . and it works fine. See?

M'kay .. sound's good. Ill giv it a try so thet wii wont have to sea ne more obnokshious & incorect wordz liek "a-l-r-i-g-h-t"

[_Tiktaalik]

I watched it. I understand it. I remain completely open minded and TBM.

I suspect that you probably stopped watching at around 7:25.

I did find it biased in it's assumption that religous thinking almost automatically leads to closed mindedness.

The argument presented in the video is not based on that assumption whatsoever.

[_EAllusion]

all right, I'll have a go at it.

As I understand it, EAllusion's point is that the video's author is presuming ontological naturalism (i.e. the position that nature is all there is, and that there is nothing outside of nature, or "supernatural").

I don't think he's doing that. I'm not even sure such an expression in this context would even be coherent. How is "natural" and "nature" getting defined here in comparison to the supernatural? He calls ghosts supernatural, but he only does so because convention holds they aren't understood to be part of nature. They could easily be in principle be a natural phenomenon if the world were different. We'd just say they were natural objects then. Atomic elements weren't understood to be part of the natural world in the year 1150. As a consequence they would be "supernatural" in this sense. Saying "nature is all there is" then would then imply our understanding of what is in the natural world is coextensive with all there is out there. In 1150, that would take atomic elements off the table. Who knows what that would take off the table today. No one is going to want to argue that. There are other ways to define natural/supernatural. For instance, I prefer to say an object is natural if that object behaves according to some coherent set of rules, however ultimately complex, and is amenable to empirical investigation.

He's just using calling things supernatural if they aren't part of what skeptics like him think is the natural world. I'm sure we probably agree about what is and isn't natural in this sense on just about everything. That's all find and dandy, but if he makes comments about not being able to support the supernatural with conventional observation, he's just begging the question against the things he doesn't think exist. I bet he would get this if mentioned to him. The problem is more in how lamp shades moving doesn't suffice to meet a threshold of evidence. There's enough lack of nuance in the presentation that it's an opening to attack and ignore the absolutely correct general point that a lack of an alternative explanation does not add any evidential weight to your own. Just because I can't explain lightning, that does not make the case for Zeus any better than it already is.

[_Tiktaalik]

I don't think he's doing that. I'm not even sure such an expression in this context would even be coherent. How is "natural" and "nature" getting defined here in comparison to the supernatural? He calls ghosts supernatural, but he only does so because convention holds they aren't understood to be part of nature. They could easily be in principle be a natural phenomenon if the world were different. We'd just say they were natural objects then. Atomic elements weren't understood to be part of the natural world in the year 1150. As a consequence they would be "supernatural" in this sense. Saying "nature is all there is" then would then imply our understanding of what is in the natural world is coextensive with all there is out there. In 1150, that would take atomic elements off the table. Who knows what that would take off the table today. No one is going to want to argue that. There are other ways to define natural/supernatural. For instance, I prefer to say an object is natural if that object behaves according to some coherent set of rules, however ultimately complex, and is amenable to empirical investigation.

He's just using calling things supernatural if they aren't part of what skeptics like him think is the natural world. I'm sure we probably agree about what is and isn't natural in this sense on just about everything. That's all find and dandy, but if he makes comments about not being able to support the supernatural with conventional observation, he's just begging the question against the things he doesn't think exist. I bet he would get this if mentioned to him. The problem is more in how lamp shades moving doesn't suffice to meet a threshold of evidence. There's enough lack of nuance in the presentation that it's an opening to attack and ignore the absolutely correct general point that a lack of an alternative explanation does not add any evidential weight to your own. Just because I can't explain lightning, that does not make the case for Zeus any better than it already is.

I disagree strongly that an ontological naturalist say that our understanding of the world is precisely right and complete at any particular moment in time. However, they would say (as you agree) that everything which exists is susceptible to empirical observation/investigation, and that this is "nature". Hence, "nature is all there is".

They would deny the existence of anything inherently beyond scientific investigation. This is where I figured the video left itself open to criticism, since it is tacitly based on a naturalist worldview but doesn't give a defence for such a worldview. Critics of the video might claim that there exist some spiritual things which cannot be tested scientifically. (These kinds of criticisms would run into problems of their own, however, especially when combined with LDS or mainstream Christian theology.)

[_marg]

I don't think he's doing that. I'm not even sure such an expression in this context would even be coherent. How is "natural" and "nature" getting defined here in comparison to the supernatural? He calls ghosts supernatural, but he only does so because convention holds they aren't understood to be part of nature. They could easily be in principle be a natural phenomenon if the world were different. We'd just say they were natural objects then.

I guess you didn't actually listen to the video. Go to the area around 4:09. His example is, one person believes in ghosts the other doesn't. He says if the believer were to offer an valid operational definition for what ghosts are supposed to be and produces valid evidence the other person might reevaluate and accept their existence.

In addition he first talks about non scientific beliefs and within that context he uses the word "supernatural". That is they are non scientific explanations for phenomenon.

So he does not discount the "supernatural/non-scientific explanation for phenomena might one day be scientific and explained withing the natural physical laws of science..whatever they may be at the time.

Atomic elements weren't understood to be part of the natural world in the year 1150. As a consequence they would be "supernatural" in this sense. Saying "nature is all there is" then would then imply our understanding of what is in the natural world is coextensive with all there is out there. In 1150, that would take atomic elements off the table. Who knows what that would take off the table today. No one is going to want to argue that. There are other ways to define natural/supernatural.

He did a great job.

For instance, I prefer to say an object is natural if that object behaves according to some coherent set of rules, however ultimately complex, and is amenable to empirical investigation.

And he said that, but in a much more consise clear manner.

He's just using calling things supernatural if they aren't part of what skeptics like him think is the natural world.

No he's not. He's saying that explaining phenomenon with non scientific explanations, in which there are no clear definitions which can be objectively evaluated and tied to the physical world, is insufficent to warrant acceptance of those explanations. But if people want to believe them, that's their priviledge.

His focus was on why one is justified in being skeptical and that rejecting scientific/supernaturalistic explanations for phenomenon is not being closed minded. His focus was not on how to critically evaluate scientific explanations which meet science standards used in practice.

[_Gadianton]

This is where I figured the video left itself open to criticism, since it is tacitly based on a naturalist worldview but doesn't give a defence for such a worldview. Critics of the video might claim that there exist some spiritual things which cannot be tested scientifically.

Or they might even go the route of saying that a "ghost" is a part of nature, Mormons believe evil spirits are made of matter more pure and refined than normal matter and while they can't be tested for now, they might be tested for later.

[_marg]

Critics of the video might claim that there exist some spiritual things which cannot be tested scientifically. (These kinds of criticisms would run into problems of their own, however, especially when combined with LDS or mainstream Christian theology.)

The video was an address to such critics. They (those critics) can believe whatever they wish, however until they provide an operational definition of "spiritual things" along with evidence to warrant those "spiritual things" it is not being closed minded to reject such claims. Acceptance of such claims is unreliable in being informative of the existence of such an alleged reality.

[_EAllusion]

I disagree strongly that an ontological naturalist say that our understanding of the world is precisely right and complete at any particular moment in time. However, they would say (as you agree) that everything which exists is susceptible to empirical observation/investigation, and that this is "nature". Hence, "nature is all there is".

I understand a metaphysical naturalist wouldn't take the position I described. It's more a consequence of calling objects we don't today understand to be part of the natural world "supernatural" by that fact alone and therefore cannot be supported because, after all, nature is all there is.

As Gad said, a ghost can be natural.