[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.