Hitchen's Razor, " "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."

[AgnosticBoy]

A lot of skeptics tend to dismiss views based on the following standard,
"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."

This standard is referred to as Hitchen's Razor.

Is this a good standard?

Is it close-minded to dismiss claims or views that aren't disproven?

 

[William]

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."

Generally I think this relies upon the idea that evidence which can be presented is the only evidence worth accepting and is one of the laws of the materialist religiosity.

Generally anything asserted without evidence can be said to be opinion rather than actual claim - so it is prudent for the individual to know the difference rather than be distracted by statements which appear to be claims but are not supported.

There is no need really to dismiss anything which is opinion. Such hand-waving does little in the way of piquing curiosity and involving oneself in investigating for oneself. Relying on others to do the work for you is an act of faith...

 

[AgnosticBoy]

There is no need really to dismiss anything which is opinion. Such hand-waving does little in the way of piquing curiosity and involving oneself in investigating for oneself.

This is along the lines of what I was thinking except that you explained it better! In fact, I was thinking about expanding the Mission Statement for the site to emphasize how each of the principles (open-mindedness, non-partisan, and free-thinking), are represented in the rules and guidelines. I want people to know exactly how I intend to have the environment that I advertise, and restricting people from simply dismissing views that lack evidence is one guideline on my list. I see it as going against open-mindedness.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."

Is this a good standard?

I can see this standard as a way to prevent false and/or unsupported views from being peddled. But the bad thing about this standard is that it throws out the good with the bad. I can relate to the need to not have people spreading misinformation or just trying to sell their views. But I can also relate to people who might want to offer their hypothesis, opinion, or some good insight (all with little or no support) as a way of contributing to the truth or understanding of a subject. I see nothing wrong the latter way of expressing opinion, especially when we consider that a lot of great ideas that we accept today (whether it be scientific or on a religious matter) started off as a hunch or as part of someone's intuition. I would not want to restrict or devalue that by being dismissive.

Is it close-minded to dismiss claims or views that aren't disproven?

I see it as being close-minded in that it leads someone to being dismissive. You don't even consider the idea, and perhaps people will more often do this towards ideas that go against their pre-existing worldview.

 

[William]

I suppose if it were just a matter of dismissing some opinion then so be it. One can do that simply by ignoring. Often the dismissive includes derogatory remarks and the like, which is not so much being simply dismissive as it is taking opportunity to attempt offensiveness.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

I suppose if it were just a matter of dismissing some opinion then so be it. One can do that simply by ignoring. Often the dismissive includes derogatory remarks and the like, which is not so much being simply dismissive as it is taking opportunity to attempt offensiveness.

Agreed. I reworked my mission statement and added a new rule to factor in your points and some of the points that skeptics would bring up.

I also took some notes from this discussion on another forum:
Your opinion is noted.