Being an Expert Can Make You More Closed-Minded, Now What?

As my readers know, I'm interested in the following kinds of studies. The findings of this recent one "illustrate what's known as the "earned dogmatism" effect -- the tendency to think in a more closed-minded, or dogmatic, way when we consider ourselves to be an expert."
What are you an expert in? Whether it's politics, chemistry or playing an instrument, a new study finds there's one major downside to having in-depth knowledge of a certain subject.

Research from Loyola University of Chicago suggests that being an expert can make you more closed-minded -- and therefore less creative -- in your thinking. The study found that people who perceive themselves to be experts tend to be less open to new ideas and alternative viewpoints. LINK.
The article tells experts how to overcome their "earned dogmatism": "The findings suggest that the best way to be an expert is to work towards achieving mastery while reminding ourselves of how much we still don't know." That's great advice for us all. However, the evangelical minded expert has an answer book, the canonized writings of ancient superstitious men found in the uninterpreted Bible. Their Bible contains the source of all truth. Study it to find out how to raise kids, counsel prisoners, or learn about the origins of the universe, where humankind came from, why we're here, where we go when we die, and so forth. In other words, the antithesis of science.

Given these things, and the fact that most Christian experts were raised with their religion in the first place, Christian experts can be blind to the corrective nature of sufficient objective evidence. Sufficient objective evidence is the corrective to anything false we were taught as children. But because Christian experts have a Bible, they allow for argument substitution, where an argument substitutes for evidence. They do this because they are "less open to new ideas and alternative viewpoints."

But look what can be done with argument substitution. Stephen Law warned us about it when he wrote, “Anything based on faith, no matter how ludicrous, can be made to be consistent with the available evidence, given a little patience and ingenuity.” (Believing Bullshit, p. 75). Since this is the case we shouldn't accept any substitute for sufficient objective evidence when it comes to claims of virgin births, or resurrections from the dead, nor when it comes to questions about matters of fact like the nature of nature, and its workings. These findings show that Christians and their experts should do what agnostics, free-thinkers and atheists are already doing when we think exclusively in terms of the probabilities based on the evidence. Am I right or am I right? ;-) Whenever asked what makes for an open-minded person I respond that it's the person who is open to the results of science.