What makes people irrational thinkers?

[polymath257]

Sorry, but that is laughable.

We need a starting point to even begin to find out the truth. If the burden of proof is not used, what else should be that starting point?

I guess if one does not care if their beliefs are true, or possibly true, then sure, shirking their burden of proof is a perfectly good method to become a credulous fool.


It is one of the most basic foundations for valid and sound logic, and the basis of the scientific method.

I'm sure one would be laughed out of any college level philosophy department, or science department, with that position. Unless one could come up with another method that demonstrated it is as consistently reliable for separating fact from fiction. Got one?

No, the goal with requiring a burden of proof, is to separate fact from fiction. The fact that it can be used successfully in a debate, only goes to demonstrate its efficacy.  


So, without using the burden of proof, how are we able to logically find someone's position unpersuasive? What is a more reliable metric?

Without using the burden of proof, how do we go about determining if any of these alleged alternative explanations are actually rational?

How do we go about even determining if they are candidate explanations?

Instead of bickering about who has the burden of proof, which presupposes a single default position, we can ask if a person's belief is warranted. This allows people to show epistemic humility, respect uncertainty, and disagree with ascribing the beliefs of others to some character flaw.

OK, is Hart's position that physical reality is inherently contingent warranted?