I love smart people that are open-minded

[Magical Realist]

"Close-minded skepticism can be described as skepticism that is not open to changing its stance on a belief or claim, even when presented with strong evidence to the contrary. It's a form of skepticism that is rigidly adhered to and often does not consider the validity of other perspectives or alternative evidence.

Here's a more detailed explanation:

Rigidity and Inflexibility:
Close-minded skepticism is characterized by a refusal to reconsider existing beliefs or claims, even in the face of new information that challenges those beliefs.

Lack of Openness:
Unlike true skepticism, which is a healthy form of critical thinking, close-minded skepticism is not open to considering different viewpoints or alternative explanations.

Focus on Disproving:
Closed-minded individuals may focus on disproving others' perspectives rather than trying to understand them.

Limited Inquiry:
They may refrain from inquiring or questioning their own beliefs, instead prioritizing the validation of their existing stance.

Confirmation Bias:
Close-minded skepticism can be influenced by confirmation bias, where individuals selectively focus on information that confirms their pre-existing beliefs while dismissing contradictory evidence."

[Zinjanthropos]

"Close-minded skepticism can be described as skepticism that is not open to changing its stance on a belief or claim, even when presented with strong evidence to the contrary. It's a form of skepticism that is rigidly adhered to and often does not consider the validity of other perspectives or alternative evidence.

Here's a more detailed explanation:

Rigidity and Inflexibility:
Close-minded skepticism is characterized by a refusal to reconsider existing beliefs or claims, even in the face of new information that challenges those beliefs.

Lack of Openness:
Unlike true skepticism, which is a healthy form of critical thinking, close-minded skepticism is not open to considering different viewpoints or alternative explanations.

Focus on Disproving:
Closed-minded individuals may focus on disproving others' perspectives rather than trying to understand them.

Limited Inquiry:
They may refrain from inquiring or questioning their own beliefs, instead prioritizing the validation of their existing stance.

Confirmation Bias:
Close-minded skepticism can be influenced by confirmation bias, where individuals selectively focus on information that confirms their pre-existing beliefs while dismissing contradictory evidence."

You’re describing yourself. You don’t realize how skeptical you are of skeptics. Sorry, I just can’t accept woo as easy as you can. You try hard to prove there’s a paranormal component of the universe but have failed miserably. I’m amazed that skeptics maintain their open-mindedness in the face of a withering barrage of evidence that so far amounts to nothing. Rejecting evidence that proves nothing is not close mindedness.

[Magical Realist]

No..you can't call me gullible and a true believer and at the same time call me a skeptic. You're the one that embraces skepticism. Which means you disbelieve everything you consider. Which is basically close-minded denialism. The AI got it right.

[Zinjanthropos]

No..you can't call me gullible and a true believer and at the same time call me a skeptic. You're the one that embraces skepticism. Which means you disbelieve everything you consider. Which is basically close-minded denialism. The AI got it right.

Never heard of a magical realist who tries to prove the magic real. If you could ever prove it then what would that make you?

[Syne]

The skepticism of a true believer is only in the service of their beliefs. Where the skepticism of the open-minded is not a self-serving defense to shore up their deep-seated beliefs. The skepticism of the open-minded is the default null-hypothesis of basic scientific inquiry. It's just an unwillingness to accept assumptions without significant evidence.

Of course, the true believe places undue significance on very questionable evidence.

[Magical Realist]

There's nothing at all open-minded about a skeptic, who always assumes the account or video is not genuine and is always fake or a mistake. The very fact that someone would designate themselves a skeptic entails that they never view the evidence without bias and seek only to debunk all reports of anomalous phenomena.Examples include Skeptical Inquirer and Mick West's Metabunk. It's really a religious devotion to beliefs they take totally on faith. Hence the demonization of those who disagree with them.

---

Never heard of a magical realist who tries to prove the magic real. If you could ever prove it then what would that make you?

Magic is simply a phenomenon we have no explanation for. There was a time when electricity was seen as magic. It's the business of science to study such phenomena in an attempt to make sense of them.

---

“the past has no existence except as it is recorded in the present. (...) we would seem forced to say that no phenomenon is a phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon. The universe does not 'exist, out there' independent of all acts of observation. Instead, it is in some strange sense a participatory universe”
― John Archibald Wheeler

[Syne]

Skepticism is a questioning attitude or doubt toward knowledge claims that are seen as mere belief or dogma. For example, if a person is skeptical about claims made by their government about an ongoing war then the person doubts that these claims are accurate. In such cases, skeptics normally recommend not disbelief but suspension of belief, i.e. maintaining a neutral attitude that neither affirms nor denies the claim. This attitude is often motivated by the impression that the available evidence is insufficient to support the claim. - wiki

Your "available evidence is insufficient to support the claim," so your claims are "mere belief or dogma."
A neutral attitude (e.g. null-hypothesis), open to new information, is far more open-minded than your dogma. You cannot pretend to be open-minded when you refuse EVERY plausible explanation in favor of your own.

But... we all know how delusional you are.

[Magical Realist]

“There are unidentified flying objects. That is, there are a hard core of cases – perhaps 20 to 30 percent in different studies – for which there is no explanation…We can only imagine what purpose lies behind the activities of these quiet, harmlessly cruising objects that time and again approach the earth.

“The most likely explanation, it seems to me, is that they are simply watching what we are up to.” (Margaret Mead “UFOs – Visitors from Outer Space?,” Redbook, vol. 143, September 1974.)

When asked if she “believed” in UFOs, she is also quoted as saying:

“I think this is a silly question, born of confusion. Belief has nothing to do with matters of faith; it has nothing to do with the kind of knowledge that is based on scientific inquiry.

“We should not bracket UFOs with angels, archangels, devils and demons. But this is just what we’re doing when we ask whether people believe in UFOs; as if their existence were an article of faith.

“Do people believe in the sun or the moon, or the changing seasons, or the chairs they’re sitting on? When we want to understand something strange, something previously unknown to anyone, we have to begin with an entirely different set of questions.

“What is it? How does it work?

“Are their recurrent regularities? Beginning in this way, with an open mind, people can take a hard look at all the evidence.“

[Syne]

And the bias is right there on the face of it. When you claim there's no explanation, but immediately say "approach the earth," you are already making unfounded and unsupportable assumptions... that fit your dogma. Just because your belief in UFOs rivals you belief in the sun or moon, that says more about the strength of your belief than it does your objectivity. Otherwise you would make "approach the earth" assumptions.

[Magical Realist]

LOL at Syne arguing with the late Margaret Mead that ufos are never seen approaching earth.