[TikiTDO]

I feel this article is guilty of exactly what it argues against. Many of the views he writes off as ridiculous may be the results of countless thought processes working in any number of contexts. Instead of accepting this, he simplified each view that contradicts his own down to an obviously ridiculous claim, then makes use of what is effectively a traditional straw man argument. Sure, it's true that if your views are rationalized the way he expects them to be then you have no logical let to stand on. On the other hand should you have any sort of more complex and rational approach to the matter it appears that he will still gladly lump you with the lunatics.

That said, I do agree that the issue he is trying to point out is of vital importance. The fact is that most of the people that believe in mysticism, religions, UFOs, psychic powers, and other things to that effect are completely disconnected from the physical reality that they inhabit. However, I do not think the solution is to tell these people that their views are ridiculous, before quoting scientific facts the implications of which you might not even understand yourself. You would be better off establishing a rapport, and gradually introducing more and more facts that do not agree with their interpretation of the world. In the end you may both find some wisdom in the result.

[jerf]

"I feel this article is guilty of exactly what it argues against.... Instead of accepting this, he simplified each view that contradicts his own down..."

Do you know what a "field guide" is? They're not generally full course textbooks on zoology.

If you want a more full treatment, I hear there's this "Believing Bullshit" book by, I don't know, some guy or other, I heard about it somewhere. (Haven't read it, so I can't guarantee it has any given thing, but I bet it's a good deal longer than that article.)

I think one is generally allowed to allude to belief in extraterrestrial visitation and psychic powers being a bit on the poorly-grounded side without popping open a footnote and pouring 150,000 words on the topic into it, especially in what is basically a sales pitch for a longer work.

[TikiTDO]

Sure, if I wanted the full treatment, I also hear there's this "Believing Bullshit" book. Unfortunately, I recall reading a synopsis, and I get the feeling that I would be wasting my money were I to buy it. The tone and content of the article in no way suggested that the book would be anything but more of the same. This isn't something you could fix with a footnote, or by writing 150,000 words on the topic. It is, I feel, a fundamental flaw of the author.

Maybe I'm being too hard on the book, and it is actually much more interesting than the article gives it credit for. Unfortunately, I'm not particularly interested in looking into the matter, and that is where the article failed for me.

[danielmason]

That seems like a pretty empty criticism when the article itself is basically a dust-cover synopsis of his book. He's illustrating particular points using representative commonly-held irrational beliefs, not laying out a point-by-point case against each.

Your line of thinking seems to imply that every counterargument must be considered before drawing a conclusion. Since the possible counterargument space is basically infinite, we wouldn't be able to decide anything. That can't be right. You have to be able to identify patterns of reasoning that are common to a whole set of "thought processes working in any number of contexts," and recognize how certain patterns will invalidate any argument that relies on them. Which is exactly what he's doing. And why he can feel confident in calling certain beliefs irrational without having heard every possible argument in their favor.