What makes people irrational thinkers?

[polymath257]

@polymath257  hasn't proven either his nominalism or radical empiricism but expects everyone else to take it for granted.

Finally, I would prefer not to think of atheism and theism as opposing “sides”. Maybe each is working a different side of the same problem.

No, I don't. I simply see it as the simplest explanation consistent with the facts as we know them.

yes, I consider platonism to be a very basic philosophical mistake. it leads to fantasies that cannot be tested.

And *that* is the critical aspect to me: is there a reliable way to differentiate between true ideas and false ideas? Mere consistency is very far from being enough.

So, in mathematics, there is the notion of formal proof. We have certain axioms that are accepted (not 'true', but accepted) and any proposed truth must be reducible to those axioms.

In the sciences, when there is a dispute, an experiment is proposed to resolve the dispute. Then actual observation determines who is wrong. At no point is any general idea proven to be true, but it is possible to prove some to be false. If there is no experiment possible that can resolve the dispute, then the dispute is said to be meaningless.

So, what process do you propose in metaphysics to resolve disputes? Suppose I am a strong physicalist and you are not. How can we reliably determine who is wrong?

If there is no such way (and the history of philosophy shows that to be the case), then the subject does not produce knowledge. It produces opinions with arguments in their support.

So, yes, I would like to separate truth from falsehood. What I have seen is that those proposing theistic metaphysics don't actually give arguments for their positions that can distinguish truth from falsity. They make claims, such as 'the physical world is inherently contingent' and fail to even define properly the terms being used. What does it mean to be 'physical'? What does it mean to be 'contingent'? How could you determine whether the physical world is contingent or not?

We know that the physical world exists (well, at least we do if we have proceeded beyond solipsism). Why add unnecessary levels on top of that for explanations? Why is it that physical reality can't be the base level for explanations?