among people who don't believe in certain non-scientific concepts

to be told by others who do to be more open-minded.

This advice is typically based on highly flawed thinking

including an inaccurate understanding of what open-mindedness is.

In fact, being open-minded simply means being willing

to consider new ideas.

Science promotes and thrives on open-mindedness

because the advancement of our understanding about the reality in which we exist

depends upon our willingness to consider new ideas.

Indeed, scientific discovery

often requires entirely new ways of thinking.

However, not only does believing in certain non-scientific concepts

not automatically make you open-minded

it can often lead you to be the complete opposite.

A neighbour of mine once noticed a moving lampshade

in my front room and said it was a ghost.

When I told him it wasn't

he said, "You've got the evidence in front of you"

and said I was stubbornly closed-minded and had no curiosity.

When he'd finished his little outburst

I reached down and switched off the small fan heater underneath the lamp

to stop its currents of warm air from moving the shade.

It was actually my neighbour who'd had no curiosity in this situation.

He'd leapt to an immediate conclusion and dismissed all alternatives.

When you label an event 'supernatural'

just because it has no explanation that's obvious to you

you'll inevitably misinterpret evidence

and make invalid causal connections.

You'll eliminate whole realms of alternative explanation

before it's even clear which explanations might be appropriate

and that's the very definition of closed-mindedness.

People who tell others to be more open-minded

about so-called 'supernatural' concepts

often accompany this advice with one or more personal anecdotes

they claim can't be explained.

This is another flawed approach.

Even if your experience can't be explained

that in no way strengthens the case for any supernatural concept.

All it shows is that your experience can't be explained.

Trying to suggest that a lack of explanation is evidence

that supernatural powers are at work

is actually a contradiction.

In effect what it's saying is:

"I can't explain something, therefore I can explain it."

The unexplained is just that: unexplained.

Furthermore, although it's quite reasonable

to describe an experience and say you can't explain it

telling your audience they can't explain it is senseless

because your audience has no independent access to the events you describe

nor any way of investigating which details you may have missed or edited out.

If my neighbour had told other people they had to accept his ghost story

because they couldn't explain the moving lampshade

how would anyone be able to agree or disagree without knowing anything about the fan heater?

Expecting others just to take your word

that you've had a brush with the supernatural is simply unrealistic.

Even if I saw someone disappear right in front of me

I'd recognize how unreasonable it would be

to expect a complete stranger just to believe me without corroborating evidence

however personally frustrating that might feel.

Someone once tried to suggest to me

that scientists who ask for evidence

before accepting claims are as closed-minded as witch doctors.

The idea that requiring evidence makes you closed-minded is a fallacy.

A willingness to consider new ideas doesn't commit you to accepting them unconditionally.

If someone you love was lying injured and unconscious

and a complete stranger told you she had some magic powder

that would cause instant healing if poured into the wounds

would you just accept this stranger's claim?

Would it be closed-minded

not to let her pour a substance you know nothing about

into the open wounds of someone you love?

We're all sceptical about SOME things.

If Alfie isn't sceptical about the existence of ghosts and Beth is

it may be that Beth's experience

of other people's flawed evidence and logic

has given her strong reasons to be sceptical.

Now, if Alfie develops a valid operational definition

for what ghosts are supposed to be

and produces valid evidence

Beth might one day re-evaluate and accept their existence.

But it's important to remember

that unless Beth says something like, "Ghosts do not exist"

she's made no factual claim requiring justification

or indicating a closed mind.

I've watched a number of people work themselves up into a froth

about me having a closed mind on some paranormal issue

only to realize, when they start listening carefully

that I don't actually hold the views they've rashly attributed to me.

For example, when I say "I don't believe X"

I've not said, "It can't be true".

All I've said is, "I've not yet been presented with persuasive evidence for X".

Now, if someone describes an entity to me that's logically impossible

then in those specific cases, I might well say, "X cannot be true"

and I'll back up my statement.

But it's a classic debating trick to exaggerate

and therefore misrepresent another person's position

and when you treat someone's statement of non-belief

as an assertion that something 'cannot be true'

this is exactly what you're doing.

If you have difficulty accepting that other people don't share your beliefs

then that's unfortunate for you, because there's a lot of difference out there.

But if knowing that someone's beliefs differ from yours

causes you to lose a sense of perspective when talking to them

so that as soon as you hear certain trigger words

you start grafting inaccurately assumed attitudes onto them

you're no longer communicating.

You're merely rehearsing your own prejudices.

And that's truly closed-minded

In the course of my life

I've been told to be more open-minded by people

who believe in a god but not reincarnation

and people who believe in reincarnation but not gods.

Both groups seem quite happy

for others to express scepticism when they do

but not when they don't.

For these people, open-mindedness seems to mean 'agreeing with me'.

Then there are others whose idea of open-mindedness

is accepting the unreliable testimony

of any random person with a spooky story.

These people are often also fiercely sceptical of science

certain comments can quickly reveal their poor understanding of what it is

and this results in two supreme ironies:

One is that they're guilty of exactly the same sceptical attitude

they criticise in other people.

The other is that what they're reserving their scepticism for

is a domain that emphasizes scepticism.

In other words, they're sceptical of scepticism.

Again, open-mindedness isn't about believing things

so believing in more paranormal things than the next person doesn't make you more open-minded

though it can be a sign that you're more gullible

and despite what some people would have us believe

it's not a virtue to be easily persuaded by people.

Those who say it is, and that requiring evidence is closed-minded

clearly wouldn't survive one day in a court of law.

After all, what does the person with that attitude do in any situation

where there's more than one version of events?

And is it closed-minded

to require evidence of someone's guilt

before locking them up?

These attitudes don't stand up for a moment in the real world.

It would be absurd to suggest we need evidence for everything we're told.

When a friend tells us about their day at work

we don't ask them to back up what they say

And we don't stop enjoying films and stories

just because they contain incredible events.

But when someone's trying to persuade us to accept something as fact

or take some sort of risk

demanding valid evidence helps us distinguish true claims from false ones,

and that's an invaluable ability in a world where believing false claims

can seriously damage your wealth and your health.

Critical thinking is not incompatible with open-mindedness.

On the contrary, it empowers an open mind.

Even though demanding valid evidence may lead you occasionally

to reject ideas that are poorly supported but nonetheless valid

if and when evidence accumulates for those ideas

an open mind will allow you to re-consider them

and possibly dislodge false ideas

you'd previously accepted as true.

This approach is promoted by science.

By contrast, when you have an open mind

but demand little or no evidence before accepting things

you leave your understanding of reality much more up to chance.

Even worse, if you've accepted false ideas uncritically

and close your mind to anything that contradicts them

you won't recognise true ideas even when the evidence is overwhelming

and you'll sabotage your own capacity for learning.

If you believe in pseudoscientific and supernatural concepts

that's your privilege.

If you want to put forward your personal reasons for believing in them

understanding that whoever's listening

may have questions or find flaws in your arguments, that's fine.

But if you're in the habit of targeting individuals you've never met

and suggesting they're in some way deficient

just because they don't believe in these concepts;

if you reject conflicting evidence and counter-arguments without consideration

but demand that others accept your arguments

and what you regard as evidence uncritically

not only is that closed-minded

it's controlling, arrogant and presumptuous in the extreme.

More importantly, when you're trying to make it seem unreasonable

for someone to want evidence before changing a significant attitude

or take a significant risk

the mere fact that your claim requires a suspension of critical thinking

should indicate it's not the other person that needs to demand less evidence

but you that needs to demand more.

Before presuming to advise others to be open-minded

think about some of the widely accepted ideas you dismiss without consideration.

You might need the advice you're dispensing

far more than other people.

Remember too that an open mind that demands little or no evidence

for ideas before accepting them

will let in an awful lot of rubbish.