Gwangi Valley - Lost Blog of the Gwangi

Scientists, skeptics and other rational thinkers are often accused of being “closed-minded” or “not open to new ideas” when they refute, debunk or otherwise remain skeptical of a belief or claim. And, likely just as often, the accuser is someone arguing in favour of their own brand of mysticism or pseudo-science. Or, at the very least, arguing that the skeptic is being unfair to said belief and doesn’t have an ‘open mind to new ideas’.

Let’s flip this around and ask a very simple followup question here: Has the accuser an open mind? Is not following a belief an affirmation that you ascribe to its premise and promises? Of course, one can believe many things simultaneously, but believing too many, especially if they diverge or purport to negate the other, doesn’t make one open minded. It makes one wishy-washy. And probably prone to buying crystal jewelry and flowy robes.

In actuality, neither is indicative of a closed mind. It’s a false dilemma of sorts. If I refute the claims of homeopathy (and I do), this does not mean that I refute all other alternatives which purport to do what homeopathy claims to do (make people well). I must take each on its own. For, you see, I am bound by the framework of the scientific method to do so. The homeopath or snake oil salesman is not. They can say whatever they wish at any time.

Bu what’s really at the root of this whole issue is a question of evidence versus the intangible. The subjective claims of closed versus open mind is, quite frankly, a red herring. What matters is whether ones claims can be proven or not. Calling a scientist closed-minded often just means one has acknowledged their being chained to the methods of science and unable to freewheel, as a mystic might. The scientist must weight the evidence, the mystic can make up claims on the spot.

The mystic says “your mind is closed” because you, the skeptic, are unwilling to abandon the measurable, the rational, and step outside the boundaries of logic. You are unwilling to believe things that do not hold up under the scrutiny of evidence. You’re not closed-minded, but you are different-minded from him.

Good on you. You have reason on your side, after all.

For the natural world — the world of the sick, the hungry, the ill-at-ease, the very things that many mystics claim to cure — has a relation to science that mysticism can never compete with or negate; the power of evidence. There is nothing like it in reality. For, indeed, it is a part of reality itself.

If you make a claim and it does not bear out in evidence, no claims of closed-mindedness will change that. Proof is what is needed and, if it is not delivered, then the skeptical mind has every reason to cast suspicion and doubt on the claim. And all the other prior evidence of the world is also at your beckon call. The laws of reality, which we call “science”, borne out over the years, are there to apply against each claim. Each whittling away the layers of falsity if there is no substance to the notion. Or bearing it up if there is.

That is an open mind. A mind letting in reason, while casting out superstition. Bettering itself by bettering the world around it through critical thinking and ration. It is, indeed, quite noble.

So the next time someone accuses you of having a closed mind because you present evidence that refutes or debunks their claims, remember… what’s really in play here is the unwillingness of the scrutinized to play by the rules of reason. Calling you closed-minded is a tactic. Whether they’re cognizant of it or if it’s simply a learned behaviour, it’s a ploy to get you to shut up or to paint you as pathetic. Anything to keep from having to answer to reality. To evidence. To science.

It’s just another form of snake oil.

Ella