How much open mindedness do we give ourselves

[godlimations]

If a proposition is unfalsifiable, how much should we remain open minded about the idea that it might exist?

It sounds ridiculous to consider that unicorns might exist, but sometimes I hear that we should not ever attempt to disprove it (that which is unfalsifiable) because we fall into the trap of the burden of proof. But for me to be open minded about unicorns seems really absurd.

[♦ Fuego ♦]

The burden of proof lies upon the one making the claim. There is no evidence of unicorns, therefore no reason to conclude they exist. Nor is there any reason to be open minded about it, any more than the existence of Gramblyfudds or Qualfidnerds. Those making the claims can submit evidence, but until then there is no point giving any credence to the claims. 

 

Belief is a substitute for knowing, but goes beyond a hunch to more of a conclusion based on desire for the thing. I can have a hunch that there are yet unknown species of life on Earth, and since we occasionally find them, that is even likely that we haven't seen every kind of creature or plant. Unicorns are a myth from a time of pre-science when all kinds of magic were feared and regarded as true without proof. Eventually, through the development of logic and much scientific inquiry we can safely say they have no basis in reality. 

 

I could even have a hunch that there could be life elsewhere in the universe. But to conclude it by saying I believe is going beyond the guess. Trying to draw up odds is not possible since we don't know how life starts in the first place.

[godlimations]

So from your statement, which part is it okay to be open minded? Maybe there aren't rules, per se, but if there is a logical guideline, I'd like to hear it.

aren't belief and hunch synonymous? For instance:
-I have a hunch there are more unknown species on the basis that we keep discovering new one's every day.

-I believe there are more unknown species on the basis that we keep discovering new one's every day.

Maybe that's just my own interpretation that isn't used in a religious context. So I guess belief could mean something else then.

On the subject of claims requiring evidence, isn't there an entire debate on empiricism vs rationalism, where logic and reasoning best evidence and vice versa? I think I'm trying to say what would be the point on metaphysics in Philosophy if there is no evidence for it? Would you say it'd be a waste of study?

I apologise that I'm probably incorrect on a few of my statements, I did not quite proofread and I gotta go somewhere, will read later tonight.

[♦ Fuego ♦]

A hunch is a suspicion that something could be true. We can then follow up on a hunch to see if it has any supporting evidence. This is how a lot of science starts, and is then followed up with well-designed tests to see if the hunch is really worth pursuing. 

 

A belief is more of a conclusion that it is probably true or is true, with little evidence or without evidence. Saying "I believe in unicorns" is essentially saying that they are real, a conclusion without evidence. 

 

But the original question you posed was, how open should we be to things that are not proved. If the things have a rational basis, with at least some actual evidence pointing to them, then we can see if the hunch plays out or not. But the more fanciful and "magic" the claims are, the less credence we can give to them until further evidence is available (and a plethora of believers isn't evidence). I can claim to be from Venus, and speak some other language as evidence, but from what we know of Venus it is not compatible with human life and if I cannot provide evidence of a ship or something more, then my claim is likely not true and can be regarded as a lie. Evidence against my claim is talking with my family, showing my birth certificate showing I was born in the USA, school pictures, and so on.

 

Some people will still claim that things are true even when factual evidence is shown to disprove their claims. That is called being stupid and stubborn. Con artists love people like that, because they can be scammed for a lot of money. Other cons just like the control it gives them over such people. 

[florduh]

I remain open minded to evidence, not beliefs.

 

Anything is technically possible, but is it probable? We must live by probabilities, not absolutes. The probability that unicorns exist is virtually nonexistent, the probability that life on other planets exists is somewhat higher even though we have yet to discover any actual proof.

[midniterider]

15 hours ago, godlimations said:

If a proposition is unfalsifiable, how much should we remain open minded about the idea that it might exist?

It sounds ridiculous to consider that unicorns might exist, but sometimes I hear that we should not ever attempt to disprove it (that which is unfalsifiable) because we fall into the trap of the burden of proof. But for me to be open minded about unicorns seems really absurd.

 

I will take the word open-minded and change it to 'pursue.'

 

Should we pursue something that we are interested in if we only have a hunch/belief that it may be true...or that it may be possible? If someone else says, "That's total nonsense" should we then abandon further pursuit of that idea? I'm willing to bet that many things we take for granted today (killing germs by hand washing, antibiotics, airplanes, radio waves, quantum entanglement, access to all known information on a flat pocket sized device) were once (or would have been) considered completely absurd/impossible by the average person ... or even top minds of the day. 

 

Some things are not testable yet. Some day they may be testable if we continue developing technology and/or keep searching and researching. 

 

Regarding unicorns or other unfalsifiable notions, if you begin to obsess about something, then it could be harmful. If you feel unicorns are telling you to adjust your investment portfolio into more risky areas and you are already retired, well, maybe you ought to rethink that. If you are well adjusted yet feel a unicorn might be blessing you with a beautiful backyard of flowers (even though you are the one that plants and waters them)...is that really an issue? 

 

A bit of magical thinking won't send you to hell...nor lead to your intellectual demise or insanity. 

 

If something isn't an 'issue' then dont make it an issue. Dont let someone else make it an issue for you. 

 

Unicorns havent' given me any trouble in 50 some odd years. Never had to scoop their poop ever. Pretty clean animals, imo. (haha) How much credence you want to give something that is unfalsifiable it is up to you. How much time you want to spend thinking about them is up to you.

 

As long as rational scientists like ... I dont know, Carl Sagan, for example..dont do something patently absurd, like send a golden record into space so aliens for which we have no evidence decide ... to play it , then I'm good.

 

( oh wait! LoL) 

 

edit:

P.S. Consider also that some claims are ordinary, some are extraordinary...and others are somewhere in between. Not everything that is without physical evidence is necessarily on the extreme side of extraordinary. Where something lies on that spectrum may guide you in how much thought you want to devote to it. 

 

 

[freshstart]

One way I like to remain open-minded is to consider that our ways of knowing may be very limited at this point in our evolutionary stage. The scientific method as we know it may be very primitive compared to other ways we may develop for discerning truth,  as we evolve. Even the idea that we have to string along alphabetical characters in long redundant patterns, in order to convey our thoughts in speech and writing, seems a primitave and cumbersome task. At the same time, we have instinctively "known" as a human species, how to regulate our own body temperature and acid-base balance, how to regenerate our own blood cells, digest our food, grow our hair, procreate, etc. If you think about it, these are different ways of "knowing."

In most instances where  humanity took huge leaps in understanding better how the world works, there was a willingness to think outside of the proverbial box. Its interesting to me that there is no real authority on how to draw the line between thinking "outside the box" versus "outside the realms of reality."

[sdelsolray]

Do not be so open minded that your brain falls out.

 

https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/04/13/open-mind/

[◊ Weezer ◊]

21 hours ago, sdelsolray said:

Do not be so open minded that your brain falls out.

 

https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/04/13/open-mind/

 

Got a chuckle out of that one.

 

To me open minded simple means it is not closed to new information.  Not that is chases every idea that comes along.

[Wertbag]

Close minded is when you say your position will never change regardless of the evidence presented. A flat earther taken to the ISS who says "these windows must be TV screens showing cgi video of the globe earth" for example. Open minded is simply being willing to consider new ideas and evidence. 

We all default to "proven beyond reasonable doubt" for our knowledge, but facts and therefore knowledge have a subjective level to them which can lead different answers on the same question. For example if a scientist runs an experiment and shows X is the result, then perhaps that is enough verification for you. Another person may say "no, you need to repeat the test", so it is done again with the same result. It gets done a thousand times by a thousand different labs all with the same result. At what point do you say this data is verified beyond reasonable doubt? This is subjective. The quantity and quality of verification is up to each persons opinion. 

I believe we can prove god doesn't exist beyond reasonable doubt, but completely understand the same facts and reasons given would not convince a Christian. 

[LogicalFallacy]

On ‎7‎/‎16‎/‎2019 at 2:20 PM, sdelsolray said:

Do not be so open minded that your brain falls out.

 

https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/04/13/open-mind/

 

I was pretty much thinking of the same quote.

 

I think the full version is "By all means keep an open mind, but don't be so open minded that your brain falls out"

 

For example I am not open minded towards the earth being flat. People try and bring in a 'balanced discussion' argument where they claim all sides should have equal time to be heard. Creationists do this in regards to evolution, climate sceptics in regards to climate change. This is nonsense. There is no 'balance' to contemplating with any seriousness the idea that the earth is flat, or that evolution doesn't happen.

 

What we should be open minded to is unanswered questions in those subject areas.

 

Regarding unfalsifiable propositions which is what the OP was about - it would seem to be a bit of a waste of time being open minded about such a proposition. By definition there is no test or evidence that could falsify an unfalsifiable proposition therefore you can never know its true. You can falsify my claim that unicorns exist on earth by sheer virtue of what we know about unicorn physiology and the vast amount of the plant explored where they might be expected to live. Now try and falsify my claim that a great Invisible Pink Transcendent Immaterial Unicorn exists. Any time you try I can just make up shit explaining why you haven't falsified it.

[florduh]

Here's a question to ask those who make unsupported assertions about anything; gods, religious belief, flat earth, climate deniers, anything at all.

 

"If it were available, what evidence would you accept for disproving your claim."

 

You will not get an answer.

 

[disillusioned]

I'm open-minded with respect to the existence of unicorns. Just give me a reason to think they exist,  and I'll consider it. Give me actual evidence, and I'll be persuaded. That is what having an open mind means. It doesn't mean don't make your mind up; it means be willing to change your mind given sufficient evidence. 

[midniterider]

Falsifiability: How much importance do we assign to it?

 

https://www.edge.org/response-detail/25322