Ken Ham and creationists are always accusing scientists of being closed minded when they won’t debate. During the election to a large extent most of the non-right winged news stations had to always have a representatives from both sides on to debate every subject. There is no need to give ideas that have been proven false repeatedly equal time and access. Time is more valuable than that. When there is not clear cut evidence then debate would be appropriate.

Either you are open to new facts and ideas and willing to learn (open minded), or you are firmly fixed in your thoughts and ideas and never change your mind no mater what evidence is presented and are nto willing to learn, because often they think they know it all already. (closed minded).

I think it's just some arbitrary bullshit people come up with. Being "close-minded" is generally the worse of the two and used in a derogatory sense. And usage of such terms can end the conversation or devolve it into an argument about abstractions.

In terms of dismissing claims, a lot of people might call that close-minded. But who gives a shit? That's not the important part, anyways.

Coincidentally, those who are the most close minded are the one who bring up that argument the most. As I see it, keeping an open mind just means you're open to new ideas. When your ideas are 2000+ years old and you keep ignoring all scientifically substantiated ideas since, claiming this argument is quite hypocritical.

I think to be open minded is simply be open to evidence and reasoned arguments, to evaluate the claims, and decide whether it's strong enough to warrant changing one's viewpoint. To be closed minded is to persist in one's current perspective irrespective of any new evidence, no matter how strong. I don't think it's being closed minded to disregard metaphysical claims until evidence is forthcoming — and extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.