The Myth of the Closed Mind: Explaining Why and How People are Rational [Paperback]

The Myth of the Closed Mind is convincing, important and entertaining. It is so convincing that readers will find themselves wondering whether anyone really doubts the book's central argument, that people are rational. But example after example will remind these readers that the myth of the closed mind is widely believed.

Percival's argument is important because if he is wrong, intellectual argumentation is pointless - bad ideas will spread regardless of their truth or logical consistency and can only be countered with force or equally illogical propaganda. If he is right, then intellectual argumentation is the strongest defense we have against bad ideas, and failure to engage in it is dangerous.

Finally, the book is very entertaining. Percival has a knack for bringing out the best examples from history, economics, politics, science, philosophy, and other disciplines to illustrate his points. These examples are always intrinsically interesting as well as devastatingly effective. It is profoundly satisfying to follow along as Percival systematically demolishes the myth of the closed mind. His book is a shining example of how arguments are won.

The Myth of the Closed Mind: a book by Ray Scott Percival.

This book rightly repudiates the idea of irrationality, as did a few forerunners like The Myth of Irrationality (1993) John McCrone and The Passions (1976) Robert C. Solomon, to cite but two earlier books that suggested a similar thesis. However, this latest book is more cogent and consistent than those two earlier books.

Shakespeare was right when he made Hamlet say to Horatio that there were more things in heaven and earth than were dreamt of in his philosophy, but the opposite is also true. The author here says there are many ideas that apply to nothing.

This is so concerning the mind too, as many ideas about mental phenomena are very popular but many seem to be quite false: faith, the closed mind, prejudice, the open mind, self deception, the unconscious mind, and the idea that we can believe what ever we like are just seven popular ideas that many hold to be factual but seem to refer to nothing that is real. The idea that humans are irrational seems to be the core meme that fosters the seven cited false ideas, amongst others. The particular idea the author sets out to refute here is that of the closed mind. He rightly says there is no closed mind, but what obfuscates that is that there is no open mind either, as we all have only the biased, erring, human mind, which can be mistaken for the closed mind. We all make assumptions that are either true or false. The duty we all have, then, is to test the assumptions as well as we can. We all need to eliminate any error that one of our biased assumptions may introduce.

The hero of the author's account is Karl Popper, who realised that we all make conjectures that might be false as well as true. He held that we thereby have this duty of attempting to refute our own pet ideas. Michael Polanyi reacted that this idea of Popper's was quite perverse. However, as we might be wrong in any assumption, Popper seems to be right that it is a duty that we all have, even if it does seem an odd thing for anyone to attempt to do. But sadly Popper seems to have fallen for the myth of the closed mind.

Debate is one way of getting others to assist us in this odd Popperian duty, for that is a way to put the task on the division of labour where we might get someone, who maybe might see our errors more clearly than we do, to point them out to us; and we might return the service by pointing any errors of his that we spot for him. That might seem less perverse. Whatever the individual motivation on each side in any debate, all debate is institutionally, or at the society rather than the personal level, a case of mutual aid. As such, it is a social boon but because people look on eristic point scoring as driven by personal ill will, it is often classed as anti-social. The idea of the closed mind puts the public against this social boon. It fosters the false idea that debate is futile.

There is a good chance that the author has written what could become a future major classic for the book deserves such success. Whether it is to be so depends on the public but the author seems to have done his part towards that end result.

Are there irrational people? Are there people who simply won't listen to sound arguments and remain unmoved by them?
The bold conjecture Dr. Percival puts forward is, in a word: NO. People are indeed rational, and this is less a matter of choice or being a good person, than it is a matter of evolution. Our species is hard wired to acknowledge--however dimly with some of us--a reality, to which we have to adapt and in which we have to survive. Dr. Percival looks at a number of counter-arguments and refutes them one by one, examining religious and ideological movements and asking the question--are such beliefs immune from reality? The answer is that they can't be--it's a trade off: the more impervious the faith or dogma to refuting counter instances in reality, the fewer the adherents. This means that someone can propound an industrial strength dogma or have a large following, but he can't have both. Evolution has hard wired a preference in us for truth. We may not change our beliefs right away but over time it can happen for precisely this reason. Ultimately, no one can be impervious to reality, and it is a mistake to assume otherwise. This is a fascinating, lucid and highly original book and I highly recommend it.