The reason is that if we tie it to one's beliefs (or 'the facts' as you say), then this only perpetuates the problem. Close-minded people generally think they have accepted the facts.

An open-minded person on a particular issue may feel strongly that their position is correct (sharing this quality with the close-minded individual), except the open-minded person is more able to change their mind. How is that possible? The only way I see it is possible is their approach to evidence. An open-minded person can review evidence and feel a strong need to account for discrepancies where they might exist.

If the discrepancies do not jive with their account, then an open-minded individual will see the necessity in changing or completely revising their account that explains the facts. Close-minded people generally never go about this change and they are known for not looking at the evidence with a sense of respect and with an impetus for consistency (e.g., creationists who constantly twist the evidence in a very inconsistent manner).

This is why I think you are being close-minded at times. You are not willing to respond to all of the inconsistencies but instead just write off the argument by being silent (and only later repeating the same old argument), or by simply making some dogmatic stance (e.g. "that paper is not worth the paper it is written on"). These are attributes of close-mindedness.

Warm regards, Harv

• You hit it on the head.. - bruce - January 24, 2002 - 20:48 UTC
• Evidences and closemindness. - alexander - January 25, 2002 - 00:50 UTC
  • *Smile* - harvey1 - January 25, 2002 - 01:23 UTC
    • Yes, close minded is someone who doesn't respect facts and logic - alexander - January 25, 2002 - 18:41 UTC
      • So then - harvey1 - January 25, 2002 - 19:03 UTC
        • SAP considers Earth life as the ONLY possible life. Too narrow. - alexander - January 26, 2002 - 23:12 UTC
          • Here's a SAP definition - harvey1 - January 26, 2002 - 23:44 UTC
            • Why does universe have to "admit observers"? - alexander - January 26, 2002 - 23:53 UTC
              • Observational selection - harvey1 - January 27, 2002 - 01:16 UTC
                • Harvey, throw a pair of dices and explain the number. - alexander - January 27, 2002 - 01:41 UTC
                  • re: "super SAP" - harvey1 - January 27, 2002 - 02:30 UTC
                    • Nor SAP gives any explanation (nt). - alexander - January 27, 2002 - 03:09 UTC
                  • Sure it does - harvey1 - January 27, 2002 - 04:33 UTC
                    • Sure it does not. - alexander - January 27, 2002 - 04:39 UTC
                  • Very simply - harvey1 - January 27, 2002 - 07:34 UTC
                    • People don't like when I point on their errors. - alexander - January 27, 2002 - 16:46 UTC
                  • Well, I consider you a friend - harvey1 - January 27, 2002 - 17:21 UTC
                    • Yikes, the word is programmed - harvey1 - January 27, 2002 - 17:53 UTC
                    • weak anthropic principle - bruce - January 28, 2002 - 04:15 UTC
                      • Imaginary time - yanniru - January 28, 2002 - 15:56 UTC