Does it pay to be open-minded?

[Theophylact]

Maybe not.

Most people believe that we have a duty to gather evidence on both sides of central moral and political controversies, in order to fulfil our epistemic responsibilities and come to hold justified cognitive attitudes on these matters. I argue, on the contrary, that to the extent to which these controversies require special expertise, we have no such duty. We are far more likely to worsen than to improve our epistemic situation by becoming better informed on these questions. I suggest we do better to embrace the views of experts who are also morally wise. I argue that this is likely to lead to more accurate beliefs about these political and moral controversies; in any case, it will avoid the incoherence and irrationality which are the likely consequence of open-minded evidence gathering.

Warning: this is a cleverly-argued and (perhaps) not wholly serious article that presents several philosophical and moral paradoxes. Read at your own risk.

[OuTpaTienT]

Makes sense to me. And he seems like an expert on the subject. I trust him.

[Bovon]

Originally posted by Theophylact
I suggest we do better to embrace the views of experts who are also morally wise. I argue that this is likely to lead to more accurate beliefs about these political and moral controversies

Bat sh**

I would prefer people who think on their feet with an open mind. A closed mind leads to a closed society. A closed society puts the people to death for any real or imagined infraction of some one at the top rules.

No thank you.