What makes people irrational thinkers?

[Simon Moon]

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.

And how do you propose determining if someone's belief is warranted? Doesn't having them meet their burden of proof seem like a reliable and effective method of doing that?

What other method do you propose to use in place of the claimant meeting their burden of proof, that is as reliable and effective, for determining if their belief is warranted? And how would one go about proving that this other method is actually more reliable?

I agree that one should admit to epistemic humility and respect uncertainty. That is why I never claim absolute certainty, and that is also why my atheism is a provisional position, not a dogmatic one.

Besides disbelieving existential claims* until the time they have met their burden of proof, what is a better default position to take, that will as reliably prevent someone from having false beliefs as requiring they meet their burden of proof?

*Just to clarify, I am not saying to believe these existential claims are false, only that there is no warrant to believe they are true.

All that you are saying here, sure seems like a convenient way to give one who has beliefs that have not met their burden of proof, a seemingly (to them) rational reason to believe them anyway.

It's not the beliefs themselves I necessarily ascribe as a character flaw (some beliefs I do; racism, sexism, homophobia, etc), but the method they used to get to those beliefs. If they are not using the most reliable methods to determine fact from fiction, yet they place a very high level of certainty on those beliefs, that I do think is a character flaw.