It's one thing to have an open mind, and quite another to believe ridiculous crap.
To reject ridiculous crap is an internal mental assessment of the evidence.
Rejecting nonsense is not evidence of a closed mind.
Have you ever examined George Kelly's ROLE CONSTRUCT theory etc.
There's the issue of personal constructs. No individual nor culture has ever been found anywhere which used more than 26 constructs with which to construe, define, channel reality.
Permeability is an interesting concept within that body of data.
So is the breadth of . . . scope of applibility of the primary constructs.
Anyway--have been quite happy with mine on all such scores.
I might hazard some guesses about yours. But you're only interested in tangible evidence.
Not sure what you do about loving other people . . . that pesky intangible stuff . . .
Rejecting nonsense is not evidence of a closed mind.
- - - - -
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, but the criteria resulting in a "nonsense" label is a critical issue.
It still mystifies me that SUPPOSEDLY FIRMLY CRITICAL, OBJUECTIVE, . . . . FAITHFUL BELIEVERS IN THE RELIGION OF SCIENTISM, ETC.
WHOLESALE
MAINTAIN A DEATH GRIP ON FAVORING VERY ILLOGICALLY, UNFOUNDED A FIERCELY DEFENDED HOLD ON VULNERABILITY TO A TYPE II ERROR.
They clearly are much more willing to make themselves vulnerable to death by a TYPE II ERROR
QUITE CONTRARY TO AVAILABLE EVIDENCE
merely because OF EMOTIONAL FAITH PREFERRING A TYPE II ERROR,
they reject the available evidence supposedly because it doesn't meet their criteria as acceptable.
When, in fact, their biases make the evidence illogically beyond their consideration--not on objective bases but because of emotional, psychological based aversion to the possibilities, probabililties that the evidence points to.
I don't consider such mental gymnastics objective or scientific to the least degree.