Let's say for a moment that someone has just reported that deceased people were appearing in controlled laboratory experiments.

What is your immediate reaction? Be honest with yourself, and don't feel compelled to weigh in on this thread, because that is NOT the point.

If your reaction is best summed up as "NO WAY!" you are not open-minded; you have a pre-existing bias which was just exposed.

If your recation is best summed up as "OF COURSE!" you are not open-minded; you too have a pre-existing bias which was just exposed.

If your reaction is best summed up as "TELL ME MORE!" you may be open-minded; you did not pre-judge, and that is perhaps the most important Initial Qualifier before anyone can claim open-mindedness.

If you found you are not open-minded, don't be surprised. It is likely that most people are closed-minded in many ways. All of us want our facts and our faith and beliefs to marry up. The reason is quite simple; it's a matter of survival. We feel our chances of survival are best when our beliefs and the facts we know are in alignment. When they are not, we feel vulnerable, uncertain, concerned and unconsciously believe that we might be at risk.

This is why debates on belief, especially on the mostly anonymous Internet, are so heated and war-like at times. People are metaphorically fighting for survival in a very real way.

Doing the same thing over and over again, and getting the same results. /tongue.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />

I agree with the OP. But, there is a point with open mindedness and agree with what your saying about Rosewell, and other historical unexplained happenings in history. Becomes a point, imo one can be too open minded and their brains start to fall out.

/wink.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':P' />

The challenge here is a lot - not all - people accept Subjective "presentations" as Evidence.

The "jury still out" is valid, but sometimes it's over used (abused) .. in that no matter how long you wait, the 'jury' will always be out - because the 'evidence' they need simply is NOT there to ponder.

Look at Roswell:

50+ years and the "jury" is still asking the same questions ... and yet how close are we to any answers to that 'mystery'?

Not even semi-sorta-kinda-maybe close.

At some point the option of starting to ask a whole different set of questions needs to be looked at!

When you keep asking the same questions over 50+ years and still get the same answers = NONE ...

(What is the definition of insanity?)

Doing the same thing over and over again, and getting the same results. /tongue.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':P' />

I agree with the OP. But, there is a point with open mindedness and agree with what your saying about Rosewell, and other historical unexplained happenings in history. Becomes a point, imo one can be too open minded and their brains start to fall out.

I would suggest that the term could also be used to describe those that claim "paranormal" before exhausting all other possibilities.....

It's also a question of technology. It makes it difficult to prove something exists when we don't know what the nature is of whatever it is that we are trying to prove.

I've stated before that I don't believe there's anything "supernatural" about most, if not all, of the things that we currently consider to be paranormal. We just don't have the scientific knowledge yet to understand it. Heck, electricity was "paranormal" until old Ben Franklin flew that kite. Our technology just has to catch up with what is happening.

IMHO, the biggest problem is that everyone starts out with the idea that they need to prove that spirits, for example, exist. That just wastes time chasing our own tails. Most of the people in the world believe that spirits do exist and a lot of them have seen one for themselves. So I would suggest that rather than starting from the position that every experiencer is either lying or mistaken until proven otherwise, we should start from the position that some phenomenon exists that we currently call "spirits" and then try to discover what they are.

I believe my own eyes and ears, so I don't require any proof that what we call "spirits" exist. I am just waiting for science to be able to explain what they are. Since people are still running around with technology based on EMFs and we don't even know that spirits have anything to do with EMF readings, this could take awhile.

This true to a degree - but sometimes ... not always ... this is a cop out to avoid accepting the facts that we do not want to accept.

This is not keeping an "Open Mind" as much as it is the need to accept the facts.

Now there does come a point that we need to play 20 Questions as I call it and listen ... any thing and everything can be tested ... unless the "God Equation" - but even to a degree that can be tested depending on exactly what we are testing in the "God Equation".

But when the "equation" is so Subjective and fine printed, why bother?

Agreed. The trouble here is that people get locked into "tradition" or the "that's the way we always do it" mentality.

It's also a question of technology. It makes it difficult to prove something exists when we don't know what the nature is of whatever it is that we are trying to prove.

I've stated before that I don't believe there's anything "supernatural" about most, if not all, of the things that we currently consider to be paranormal. We just don't have the scientific knowledge yet to understand it. Heck, electricity was "paranormal" until old Ben Franklin flew that kite. Our technology just has to catch up with what is happening.

IMHO, the biggest problem is that everyone starts out with the idea that they need to prove that spirits, for example, exist. That just wastes time chasing our own tails. Most of the people in the world believe that spirits do exist and a lot of them have seen one for themselves. So I would suggest that rather than starting from the position that every experiencer is either lying or mistaken until proven otherwise, we should start from the position that some phenomenon exists that we currently call "spirits" and then try to discover what they are.

I believe my own eyes and ears, so I don't require any proof that what we call "spirits" exist. I am just waiting for science to be able to explain what they are. Since people are still running around with technology based on EMFs and we don't even know that spirits have anything to do with EMF readings, this could take awhile.

At some point the option of starting to ask a whole different set of questions needs to be looked at!

Agreed. The trouble here is that people get locked into "tradition" or the "that's the way we always do it" mentality.

/tongue.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':P' />

If the new idea does not stand up to scrutiny however, it will be rejected.

I agree with this, the sad part is, once it's been rejected, then people call you close-minded for rejecting it.

People are weird.

Very valid points in the OP though.

The challenge here is a lot - not all - people accept Subjective "presentations" as Evidence.

The "jury still out" is valid, but sometimes it's over used (abused) .. in that no matter how long you wait, the 'jury' will always be out - because the 'evidence' they need simply is NOT there to ponder.

Look at Roswell:

50+ years and the "jury" is still asking the same questions ... and yet how close are we to any answers to that 'mystery'?

Not even semi-sorta-kinda-maybe close.

At some point the option of starting to ask a whole different set of questions needs to be looked at!

When you keep asking the same questions over 50+ years and still get the same answers = NONE ...

(What is the definition of insanity?)

I agree with this, the sad part is, once it's been rejected, then people call you close-minded for rejecting it.

People are weird.

Very valid points in the OP though.

"Skepticism is not about rejecting ideas: it's about testing them for validity.

Being open-minded about something is a willingness to consider that it may be true: it also means considering the possibility that it may be false. A truly open-minded person's mind is open to both possibilities."

Yes, I agree!

In another forum the "You don't have an open mind" is thrown out in the "Spirit" of the First one and Last one a lot.

When someone tried to present a counter argument/point .. the person would quickly throw out, "Well of course you would post that ... you have a closed mind about such things."

I agree with you and the OP - in that you have an open mind to evaluate and then form a judgement or opinion based on the evidence presented so far ... If the "jury is still out" - then one remains skeptical until such evidence is provided to help the person go one way or another ...

Being open-minded about something is a willingness to consider that it may be true: it also means considering the possibility that it may be false. A truly open-minded person's mind is open to both possibilities."

Yes, I agree!

Here are some quotes from the page:

• It is very common for people who are putting forward a claim to say something like, "you must consider this with an open mind", or if their claim is rejected they will say something like, "well of course you don't believe it, you're closed-minded".
• If the new idea does not stand up to scrutiny however, it will be rejected.
• The actual word used to describe a person who will believe in absolutely anything is: credulous.
• If others do not 'open-mindedly' share their beliefs or accept their argument as valid, they accuse them of being 'closed-minded'. This is simply a fallacious Ad Hominem argument.
• Skepticism is not about rejecting ideas: it's about testing them for validity.
• Being open-minded about something is a willingness to consider that it may be true: it also means considering the possibility that it may be false. A truly open-minded person's mind is open to both possibilities.
• Disagreeing with a person's position or argument after considering it does not make one closed-minded.
• They use it as a shield against the use of critical thinking and logical analysis of their ideas, claims, and often bizarre beliefs.
• The claim to be open-minded is frequently used by people who wish to sound virtuous, and simultaneously make their opponent sound intolerant, while defending or promoting their ideas and beliefs.