How to deal with Unevidenced claims? How to be reasonably open-minded?

[AgnosticBoy]

I created a thread that discusses the problems with Hitchen's Razor. BUt instead of critiquing that, I want to focus on how we can handle unevidenced claims. Being an agnostic themed forum, I can't help but bring up how Huxley would've handled such claims,

The results of the working out of the agnostic principle will vary according to individual knowledge and capacity, and according to the general condition of science. That which is unproven today may be proven by the help of new discoveries to-morrow. The only negative fixed points will be those negations which flow from the demonstrable limitation of our faculties. And the only obligation accepted is to have the mind always open to conviction. Agnostics who never fail in carrying out their principles are, I am afraid, as rare as other people of whom the same consistency can be truthfully predicated. But, if you were to meet with such a phœnix and to tell him that you had discovered that two and two make five, he would patiently ask you to state your reasons for that conviction, and express his readiness to [247] agree with you if he found them satisfactory. The apostolic injunction to "suffer fools gladly" should be the rule of life of a true agnostic. I am deeply conscious how far I myself fall short of this ideal, but it is my personal conception of what agnostics ought to be.

Source: Agnosticism (1889)

No talk of dismissing unevidenced claims there.

For Debate:
1. Is there a reasonably open-minded way to handle Unevidenced claims? If so, what are those ways? How have you handled such claims?
2. We can also critique Huxley's standard. Is his standard in the quotes reasonable?

 

[bbyrd009]

I created a thread that discusses the problems with Hitchen's Razor. BUt instead of critiquing that, I want to focus on how we can handle unevidenced claims. Being an agnostic themed forum, I can't help but bring up how Huxley would've handled such claims,


Source: Agnosticism (1889)

No talk of dismissing unevidenced claims there.

For Debate:
1. Is there a reasonably open-minded way to handle Unevidenced claims? If so, what are those ways? How have you handled such claims?
2. We can also critique Huxley's standard. Is his standard in the quotes reasonable?

i would say that as for unevidenced claims made by Christians, the Bible usually or always refutes their claims anyway, and the claims/beliefs are generally based upon wishful thinking and selective reading, as the Bible even warns about.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Is there a reasonably open-minded way to handle Unevidenced claims? If so, what are those ways? How have you handled such claims?

I think the standard of dismissing unevidenced claims is highly unreasonable; it is close-minded, at the least.

One reason we should be open to unevidenced claims is because there is a chance that they might be true (the ones not proven false, that is) or might give us ideas that can point us in the right direction. With that said, here are some fair and reasonable ways to handle unevidenced claims:

1. Don't assume that they are true (or false).
2. Look for any validity in it or ways that it can lead to it. Unevidenced claims may have some truth to them instead of being entirely true (or false).
3. Explore it. Engage in theoretical reasoning. Question how it would work, how it can be tested, weight potential arguments for and against it, etc.

If I can think of more then I'll add it to the list. I also know that it is not practical to give every unevidenced view equal time for consideration. Some you may just end up having to ignore due to time and/or prioritizing for other views. But remaining silent or ignoring for those reasons is certainly different than doing it just because something is unevidenced. That standard would lead you to dismiss all of those views (although such a standard is hardly applied consistently by skeptics, in my experience).

We can also critique Huxley's standard. Is his standard in the quotes reasonable?

I think Huxley's standard is the epitome of reasonable open-mindedness. It doesn't leave you gullible enough to accepting any wild claim but at the same times there are standards in place for accepting it as true or false, and that is plain ole logic and evidence. Another reason I like Huxley's standard is because he is open to ANY type of claim. Some people would only be open up to the point of what they think is possible. For instance, a materialist might only be open-minded to claims only if they are in line with materialism. A Christian might only be open to supernatural claims, only if they are in line with Christianity. Huxley's standard advocates being open for ANY type of claim,

 

[AgnosticBoy]

i would say that as for unevidenced claims made by Christians, the Bible usually or always refutes their claims anyway, and the claims/beliefs are generally based upon wishful thinking and selective reading, as the Bible even warns about.

Ironic, but true a lot of time!