From the first time our ape descended ancestors were banging the rocks together to the moment we created our possible silicon based replacements, humanity’s trajectory has been one of shaping the raw materials of our world into ever more sophisticated instruments of understanding and control. This journey—marked by experimentation, adaptation, and refinement—has allowed us to progress from crude implements to refenments of glass and metal that now enhance and redefine our living experience. Its a journey driven not just by creativity and intelligence but far more by open-mindedness Functional Empiricism.
In our exploration of functional empiricism, we’ve thus far considered scientific, political, and psychological forms of empiricism, each distinguished by rigorous empirical testing of multiple hypotheses against observed outcomes. Extending this framework further, we now examine open-minded empiricism—a mode of thought dedicated not to championing any single model but to simultaneously developing and testing diverse and often competing models against reality.
Open-minded empiricism actively embraces multiplicity and contradiction, recognising that no single conceptual framework captures the entirety of truth. Philosopher John Stuart Mill famously advocated for precisely this approach in his classic defence of intellectual freedom in On Liberty (1859). Mill argued emphatically that robust debate and the competition of ideas was essential precisely because “he who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that.”
This approach shares common ground with traditional liberalism, promoting the coexistence and active consideration of diverse ideas. As Isaiah Berlin elucidated in his concept of “value pluralism,” the recognition of multiple legitimate ways of living and thinking requires genuine openness (Berlin, 1969, Four Essays on Liberty). Unlike conventional open-mindedness, which passively entertains diverse ideas without rigorous testing, open-minded empiricism advocates actively evaluating these models through defined criteria, which themselves can evolve.
The flexibility in choosing and revising such evaluative criteria introduces another layer of complexity. Philosopher Amartya Sen, in The Idea of Justice (2009), emphasises the importance of adapting evaluative criteria—such as justice or happiness—based on empirical observations of their effectiveness in enhancing human well-being. For open-minded empiricists, the meta-criteria for evaluation—such as personal fulfilment, happiness, or societal harmony—are themselves open to empirical assessment and refinement.
This empirically grounded openness starkly contrasts with ideological rigidity, exemplified by Neo-Marxist liberalism, where certain fixed dogmas interpret all experiences. Philosopher Karl Popper’s critique of closed ideological systems highlights this contrast sharply: closed systems, Popper argued, resist empirical falsification and aggressively dismiss alternative views, stifling intellectual progress (Popper, 1945, The Open Society and Its Enemies). Conversely, open-minded empiricism consciously subjects even widely accepted societal norms and values to critical, empirical scrutiny.
Indeed, practitioners of open-minded empiricism often encounter resistance or outright criticism from proponents of rigid or dogmatic thinking, precisely because empiricists consider ideas outside accepted social norms. Cognitive psychologist Leon Festinger’s seminal work on cognitive dissonance (A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, 1957) highlights how confronting divergent views often leads to discomfort or hostility among those committed to fixed beliefs. Consequently, open-minded empiricists frequently face backlash, accused of holding “unacceptable” views, when, in reality, they seek only empirical validation or refutation through real-world testing. It is always astonishing about how adamant nominally intelligent people often are about things that are basically unknowns or where there reasoning is based on unfounded axioms. The interesting feature is that if they turn out to be working on flawed premises and their beliefs don’t pan out they move on to the next unfounded certainly without a moment of self reflection never improving their processes or recognising how to recognise flawed axioms.
Conversely, the exposure of the empiricist to criticism is itself a strength. Philosopher Hannah Arendt pointed out that genuine thought involves risk and the willingness to endure societal criticism (Thinking, 1978). Only through courageous and deliberate empirical testing of diverse ideas can deeper truths emerge.
Thus, open-minded empiricism extends functional empiricism by integrating robust empirical evaluation with a commitment to intellectual pluralism. Far from passively entertaining ideas, this disciplined approach actively tests them against shifting, empirically determined criteria. Such a practice offers profound potential for societal progress and personal growth, enabling us to live richer, more critically engaged, and ultimately more fulfilled lives.
References:
- Mill, J.S. (1859). On Liberty. J.W. Parker and Son.
- Berlin, I. (1969). Four Essays on Liberty. Oxford University Press.
- Sen, A. (2009). The Idea of Justice. Harvard University Press.
- Popper, K.R. (1945). The Open Society and Its Enemies. Routledge.
- Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford University Press.
- Arendt, H. (1978). Thinking. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.