There's an important distinction between knowing and believing. Saying "I don't know" is a statement of knowledge, but that is different from a statement of belief. For instance, I am an agnostic atheist: I don't know if any gods exist, but I don't believe they do. One can be entirely capable of believing or not believing while still being open to the idea that their beliefs may be wrong because they don't know. Saying "I believe gravity pulls me towards Earth" doesn't preclude me from changing that belief if, say, evidence presents itself that I'm actually being held down on the ground by an invisible demigod's barbell -- it just means I currently believe gravity to be the cause.
"One could believe in things and not care about proving them to others, yet this will not convince others nor produce any evidence."
Sure, but just because someone believes something doesn't make it true, so beliefs without evidence don't matter. That is, except when those beliefs inform the person's behavior; then they matter greatly, because they affect people around them despite not having any basis for their behaviors (since they have no basis for their beliefs).
"One could also hold the view that everything is false and not worth looking into unless someone else provides proof. This will not produce evidence either."
"Someone else" could also be "that same person"; but even if it's not, then it would still motivate the production of evidence by requiring someone to look for evidence in order to convince said person.
"But I still think those willing to entertain ideas without accepting or denying them can better explore that topic and use those thoughts cross domains. A world without strict self imposed mental boundaries can be beneficial."
I agree completely. And the biggest imposed mental boundary is equating "I believe" with "I know" :) "I don't know" is valid and, indeed, generally the best approach, epistemically speaking; "I neither believe nor disbelieve" is apathy at best, self-deception at worst.
"One could believe in things and not care about proving them to others, yet this will not convince others nor produce any evidence."
Sure, but just because someone believes something doesn't make it true, so beliefs without evidence don't matter. That is, except when those beliefs inform the person's behavior; then they matter greatly, because they affect people around them despite not having any basis for their behaviors (since they have no basis for their beliefs).
"One could also hold the view that everything is false and not worth looking into unless someone else provides proof. This will not produce evidence either."
"Someone else" could also be "that same person"; but even if it's not, then it would still motivate the production of evidence by requiring someone to look for evidence in order to convince said person.
"But I still think those willing to entertain ideas without accepting or denying them can better explore that topic and use those thoughts cross domains. A world without strict self imposed mental boundaries can be beneficial."
I agree completely. And the biggest imposed mental boundary is equating "I believe" with "I know" :) "I don't know" is valid and, indeed, generally the best approach, epistemically speaking; "I neither believe nor disbelieve" is apathy at best, self-deception at worst.