Anyone want to debate this formally with me?

[Chas]

Look, have fun moving the goalposts, but you're on your own with that. I stated the premises, you want to change them. Go ahead; when you would like to address what I actually said, I would be interested.

No post moving. I'm just curious where the boundries are with rational and irrational. We know people can lie. I don't know if my neighbor has a basement or not. How skeptical do we need be to qualify as being rational?

Is it rather, believing claims contrary to our understanding (as with the dragon) that are irrational to believe?

Boundaries? No, it is not either/or, it is a spectrum.

In my example, I stated what I did and didn't know. If you don't know for certain that your neighbor has a basement, that is a different fact set.

If I lived in Florida, my response to the neighbor might be, "You have a basement?" since they are really unusual in Florida. Here in New England, it is unusual not to have one.

One should be appropriately skeptical. A claim of a mouse in the basement is very different than a claim of a dragon in the basement.