What makes people irrational thinkers?

[Paleophyte]

I have been thinking lately when it comes to how people become rational thinkers. It seems that some people are born questioning everything 
and it never really goes away it may be repressed, but doesn't leave allowing them to eventually escape. Then there are some people who seem to not have that spark of curiosity. Here's a short story that brought this thought to my mind: I was a person who questioned even when I was superstitious, I always doubted my own beliefs and it led me to atheism and rationality on its own. But I had a friend who if you gave her a fake video of a ghost and it's obvious it's being done by another person she'll believe it. It doesn't even have to be a ghost either it could be a simple as a fake cooking video and she'll believe it. Questioning to her was always "Overthinking" and if you were overthinking it led to suffering. She wasn't a person who went to church very often but her family was religious and very harmful.  I got older and wiser and as much as I tried to help her turn the perspective around she never changed. While I was moving forward she chose to stay behind no matter how much logic or reason was given. It was never enough. Sometimes it was willing ignorance other times it was just ignorance. I never figured it out or learned to wrap my head around it. Why is it some people even from a young age just refuse to think for themselves? 
Even when they're not caught up in church-going?

Humans are inquisitive, not rational. It's why we find math so difficult. If we were innately rational thinkers then calculus would be so much easier to grasp. Instead, our brains and minds are the product of billions of years of evolution that has lead to an organic snarl of competing and counterproductive impulses, instincts, emotions, and biases. Overcoming those is a life long challenge that none of us every truly complete. This is hampered in many people by an upbringing in an environment that actively discourages questioning or thought in favour of belief, devotion, and obedience.

On top of that the purpose of thinking is to stop thinking. You're evolved to solve a problem quickly, and often poorly, and then cease this needlessly wasteful cogitation. Thinking is an energy intensive exercise that you have evolved to avoid. It's as unhealthy for you as continuously sprinting or doing chin-ups every waking moment of your life. Philosophy is not an aspiration that evolution selects for. Which is great until your species develops beyond the stone age and starts creating hellishly complicated social and technological problems that actually require some skull sweat to prevent the collapse of civilization.

---

"Burden of proof" is way overrated.

Excellent. You're a moron. You're so utterly lacking in the most basic capacities for self-evaluation as to be utterly incapable of grasping the depths of your own imbecility. Since we've discarded the burden of proof I need do nothing more that assert this and since you're more witless than a sheep we need not pay your response any heed.

I hope that my little diversion into absurdity has illustrated for you why, "Whoever shovels the bullshit gets to back it up." Or should we do away with "Innocent Until Proven Guilty" while you're at it?

[GrandizerII]

I’m curious; why do you believe that the question of the necessity or contingency of physical  reality is a purely philosophical one that science cannot have anything to say about?

How would science go about establishing that physical reality is necessary or contingent? Not saying it's not possible, but it seems like the best we can do is to rely on intuition as to what would do for something to be metaphysically necessary or contingent.

A physical reality comprising of only one universe doesn't feel like a necessary reality because you can reasonably ask yourself the question "why this universe rather than an alternate universe?" or "why one seemingly arbitrary universe instead of multiple universes?" This is the case even under theism. If God is the reason for this one particular physical reality, why this rather than an alternate?*

It seems like the most intuitive way to argue for a metaphysically necessary physical reality is if you postulate that it comprises a network of all metaphysically possible universes or something like that. Then the question of "why this rather than that" starts to feel forced and less reasonable to ask.

This is of course just speculation on my part. Ultimately, reality need not give two shits about my or anyone else's intuitions. Physical reality may simply be a brute fact after all; it just is (even though it could've been something else instead).

*I know some theists argue that this is the best of all possible worlds, which is why God brings forth this world rather than some other possible world. But taking one good look around us, and this doesn't sound very convincing at all.

[LadyForCamus]

I’m curious; why do you believe that the question of the necessity or contingency of physical  reality is a purely philosophical one that science cannot have anything to say about?

How would science go about establishing that physical reality is necessary or contingent? Not saying it's not possible, but it seems like the best we can do is to rely on intuition as to what would do for something to be metaphysically necessary or contingent.

Sure, and likewise, I’m not asserting that it is possible. Rather, I’m pointing out what seems to be an inconsistency in the fact that Hart makes very specific claims about the nature of physical reality in his arguments while simultaneously insisting science can say nothing of these details one way or the other. It seems like the set-up of an escape hatch of sorts so that he can make sweeping assertions about physical reality without having to support them. 

A physical reality comprising of only one universe doesn't feel like a necessary reality because you can reasonably ask yourself the question "why this universe rather than an alternate universe?" or "why one seemingly arbitrary universe instead of multiple universes?" This is the case even under theism. If God is the reason for this one particular physical reality, why this rather than an alternate?*

It seems like the most intuitive way to argue for a metaphysically necessary physical reality is if you postulate that it comprises a network of all metaphysically possible universes or something like that. Then the question of "why this rather than that" starts to feel forced and less reasonable to ask.

If I understand you correctly, that’s more along the lines of what I’m thinking; that there is no alternative to existence, or stuff existing, because non-existence, by definition, cannot exist as an alternative state of affairs. A Necessary physical existence could encompass all possible physical realities. Or at least, I don’t see why it couldn’t.

[GrandizerII]

If I understand you correctly, that’s more along the lines of what I’m thinking; that there is no alternative to existence, or stuff existing, because non-existence, by definition, cannot exist as an alternative state of affairs. A Necessary physical existence could encompass all possible physical realities. Or at least, I don’t see why it couldn’t.

I agree with you on this, but I was thinking more "this reality vs some other reality" rather than "existence vs non-existence".

[Neo-Scholastic]

"Burden of proof" is way overrated.

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's not writ in stone. It's often used as a way to avoid defending one's own position. If the goal is to "win" something in a debate club, it may be useful. If we're trying to work out the truth, as best we can, it's an interruption.

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.

If he has reasons for his position, he should give them. If we have reasons why we find his position unpersuasive, we should give them. Meanwhile if we find better alternative explanations they may be useful.

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.

[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?

[Deesse23]

Instead of bickering about who has the burden of proof, which presupposes a single default position,

No, it doesnt.
All it says is that he who makes a claim should provide evidence. Period. It does not say, that in lack of evidence something else is true.

[Paleophyte]

How would science go about establishing that physical reality is necessary or contingent? Not saying it's not possible, but it seems like the best we can do is to rely on intuition as to what would do for something to be metaphysically necessary or contingent.

Intuition is handy for making split second decisions based on incomplete information but it is lousy at arriving at the truth. Our intuition tells us that the world is flat.

---

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?

More interestingly, upon what is physical reality contingent?

And is it even logically possible for physical reality to be contingent? Without physical reality we are left with...?

[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.

[GrandizerII]

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

More interestingly, upon what is physical reality contingent?

And is it even logically possible for physical reality to be contingent? Without physical reality we are left with...?

When the theist argues that the universe, or physical reality, must be contingent, they are not necessarily implying that non-existence is possible. They can grant that existence is metaphysically necessary, while also arguing that it need not be in this actual form that it is in.

If we suppose, for the sake of argument, that this reality only comprises one universe (with us in it), then would you agree that there could have instead be a reality in which we didn't exist at all? If so, then it seems to me like this would be a concession that this physical reality is contingent. If not, then you're arguing that it is metaphysically necessary and couldn't have been otherwise (but this would be a really hard argument to make for this scenario, at first glance).

For the atheist, there appear to be primarily two options to go with in response to whether a one-universe reality is contingent or not:

1. Such a reality is necessary because there's no way it could've been otherwise. This seems to suffer from the same problem as when the theist argues that this world is the best of all possible worlds. It's hard to see how it could not have been otherwise.

2. Such a reality is not necessary as is, but it exists as is nevertheless. And there need not be an explanation for that. The universe is a brute fact.

If we start postulating multiple universes per physical reality, it gets intuitively easier to see how reality must therefore be necessary. And it's even easier when we consider all possible universes being actual universes within this reality. So if the first two options listed above aren't appealing to the atheist, this is basically the third option.

About your statement on intuition, I think I have a less cynical view of it. Intuition, when it is coupled with good reasoning and given what we do know and observe, can be a good pointer in the right direction. But yeah, you definitely do not want to rely primarily on intuition for certainty.

And for me, no, my intuition doesn't tell me the earth is flat. I've seen the pictures and videos after all (and the science clearly shows it is not flat). Intuition itself can evolve with new understanding. Intuition also isn't the complete opposite of reasoning; they are often in tandem with one another when it comes to pondering/analyzing reality. Intuition is automatic and doesn't involve much rigor per se, but it doesn't mean reasoning cannot make use of intuition at all.