Yes.

I'm both open minded and not at the same time ...

I'm generally entirely willing to listen to opposing viewpoints and try to understand another perspective on most things; and I have been known to argue the opposite view of what I believe to understand an issue better. At the same time, most people's theories or beliefs are very poorly supported, and it is difficult to support another person's viewpoint which is very poorly formed.

To explain what I mean, I was in a discussion with someone who claimed that Jared Loughner's belief that there was a conspiracy to brainwash people through grammer was the sign of a delusional mind. I decided (for the hell of it) to argue the opposite view that it was entirely reasonable to believe that language was being used by people to control what people did or did not think of; and this was a form of brainwashing. My argument centered around the censorship that was in the news recently surrounding Huckleberry Finn and Dire Straits Money For Nothing, and that this demonstrates that there is an effort to erase certain words from our language in an attempt to control the thoughts people can think. While I tried to defend his worldview (and I believe I was successful) I do not share his worldview (or at least to the extent that he does).

I tend to be fairly open minded just based on the fact that I like to be a "Devil's Advocate" and live life by the 99% principle.  In that you can never be more then 99% sure of anything.

It's rarely worth starting an arguement unless you know how to argue both sides.

Some possibly ridiculious stuff I'm willing to consider.

- Foreign Aid is actually making humantarian problems worse instead of better, because it leads to population booms and just makes it so more people starve later rater then some starve now.

-All of Reality is a computer program.  On the theory that one day we will be able to make sophisticated computers that could make model universes.   Meaning that there would be one real universe, and many "model" universes... that may in turn make their own model universes.  Mathematically odds would be very low we were the real universe.

-Michael Jordan played baseball because the NBA caught him gambling.   I mean, Michael Jordan would play now if he could... i'm supposed to believe he left during his prime on his own free will?  When he'd play right now if someone would sign him?

That's probably a good description of me too, to be honest. I like claims to be proven to me. But there are some cases where people have tried to prove their claim to me, and after hearing the same case made to me many dozens of times I pretty much dismiss it right after they've made their initial claim now.

If someone said to me and said that they've just seen a ghost I wouldn't believe them at that point. I wouldn't believe them because I've spoke to people before who have claimed to have seen ghosts or believe in ghosts, and they have never been able to back up their claim. So from my personal knowledge, I know there are most likely no such things as ghosts, and so that's the answer I automatically come to when someone makes that claim.

That being said, if someone came to me with a fresh claim of something I've never come across before, I would try to give it a fair hearing.

I guess it's just down to experience really.

You claim to be driven by science, yet you seem to be abandoning logic and creating beliefs that are unsupported by evidence ...

The statement "I cannot demonstrate the existence of ghosts and therefore ghosts probably do not exist" is not a particularly sound statement; because many of the things we know exist today could not have been demonstrated to exist a couple of generations ago.

On the other hand, the statement "I cannot demonstrate the existence of ghosts and therefore will not make decisions that depend on the premise that ghosts exist" is much more sound.

I get that i am pretty closed minded. But what i hate the most is when people call me out on it while we are debating. Saying things like " Oh, your so stubborn" REALLY PISSES ME OFF. They are just as stubborn for not agreeing with me -___-

I am totally close minded. It takes some good time before i warm up to something and it has to involve my own experience with it. For example, in my freshman year i truly believed art/design was a waste of talent. I believed Engineering and math/science was x10000 more important. I would dismiss pantings and design but then i realized how important it was by taking a design class. 

I try to be if possible but I'd say no, I'm pretty close minded on many issues.

I'm open to change though if someone brings up a good argument (or indisputable evidence) for the other side of the issue.

I am a mixture of both.

I am open minded in the sense that I will try most of everything I will learn. I do not say okay I don't believe in Islam so I won't research it. I have read several holy books and such. I am also open minded when it comes to Science I believe in Micro Evolution and such yet I am a Christian. I learn about other peoples beliefs. I am also open minded to a degree when it comes to human rights, I disagree with what gays and hippies viewpoints but I believe in their rights to do so.

I am closed minded in the sense that I don't experiment. I have moral boundaries which I do not cross, I would never experiment with drugs, sexually and no-longer consume alchohol. I also know what I believe in and won't likely deviate from my core values.

So in the end I think I'm average I have my core values which I do not deviate from, however I am always up for learning about other peoples beliefs and their freedom to make life choices that are opposed to my beliefs!

Well, yes. My statement may be unsound from a scientific perspective, and probably hypocritical too. In an ideal world where I apply scientific knowledge to everything I would be agnostic to things like this, at least until we have evidence that shows us what the case is.

I think from a scientific perspective, I certainly don't know whether they exist or not, and it would be foolish to make an assumption on something based on whether they do or do not exist.

However, when I hear the same claim argued again and again without success, I tend to find that my instinct is strengthened in the other direction, which I admit is very unscientific. But coupled with the fact that very often there are more rational explanations to encounters with ghosts, which I find far more satisfying than the evidence used to support them, I think it becomes more reasonable for me to make a statement saying ghosts don't probably exist from a purely personal perspective.

In short, if you were to ask me seriously about what I think, I would say "Scientifically I don't know if ghosts exist or not, but my personal opinion would lead me to lean on the one side and say I don't think they exist."

You are right though. I know my statement is flawed, and usually against my character.

(On an unrelated side note, to add to my views: When people make claims for the existence of ghosts using evidence I've never encountered before I'm usually all ears.)

I don't know, for a person who has a strong opinion on most subjects, you've always seemed very open to other ideas to me. Mind you, as you said, I think it helps if someone brings up a good argument for the opposing side.