Yep. Logically. — Mww

-"dude take care of that back...all this dodging might cause some issues..."
-I don't care about what on can do through logic. This is not how we verify existence. There is a good reason why Peter Higgs didn't receive the Nobel prize ~60 years ago but we waited the Objective verification of his mathematical syllogisms by Cern.....to do it.

Yep. Your brand of knowledge anyway.
No apologies. — Mww

-There is only one brand of knowledge.(A claim that is in total agreement with current available facts with instrumental value).

you are derailing it. I only pointing out the obvious. There aren't any epistemic foundations for the concept of gods...so not only there aren't any scientific foundations for this concepts, there also zero philosophical foundations for it.
The supernatural is pseudo philosophy BY DEFAULT.

So it is obvious that you don't have an answer to this simple question. I won't address any other of your comments until you display basic honesty and present some actual arguments on why epistemology is not necessary for a claim to be acknowledged as wise (philosophical).

Be careful. We might find ourselves doing philosophy if you keep this up. — jas0n

I am not sure you are capable of that...after all you are whining on what you think my motivations are....you don't address the issues in hand.

'Hello. I'm Nick. I define a wise (philosophical) claim to be one with epistemic support. Now, given this uselessly vague definition, I challenge you to accept and challenge this definition simultaneously.' — jas0n

-I think you are an excellent example for my arguments! I hope Agent Smith can observe this interaction and see how huge of a problem epistemic disconnectedness is for Pseudo Philosophy and sophists.

maybe an other question...
what makes a claim wise...in your opinion?

dude take care of that back...all this dodging might cause some issues...
Ok we know that you will defend your magical ideology to the end even if it means you have to embarrass yourself.
So you can not explain why this simple condition(epistemic support) is missing for your ideologies......
you are done I guess.

I am asking a question...how can a statement be accepted as wise when it has not epistemic foundations. — Nickolasgaspar


How can a statement be accepted as false if it is true? Riddle me that ! — jas0n

Again.pls explain why we should accept a claim as wise when it doesn't have epistemic support....what is your criterion and method of evaluation. Your feelings?

You can not have wise claims without epistemic support. — Nickolasgaspar


This is an awkward tautology. The hard part (the actual work) is figuring out what all that otherwise vague babble means. — jas0n

ok now we know that you are also unable to distinguish wisdom from knowledge......
Do you really thing that equating different concepts is your "out of jail card"?

Your 'valid' critique was a few pejorative adjectives, a few platitudes, and a few links to books/videos that maybe were supposed to supply the actual critique.... — jas0n

I am not interested in your excuses.
I am pointing the issue in claims that are epistemically disconnected....they are not philosophical.

You have hardly provided any facts, just recycled deepities about the sorry state of philosophy. — jas0n

- you need to focus...I am asking a question...how can a statement be accepted as wise when it has not epistemic foundations.

That seems to be all you have, this obsession with the supernatural. Philosophy is dominated by atheists. I'm an atheist. This forum also seems to lean atheist/agnostic. For many people the whole supernatural issue is so settled that it's not even interesting. — jas0n

-So you can't offer an answer. You are not the only one. Your obsession with magical thinking is what pollutes our philosophy....not mine.

Your biggest gripe about philosophers? That they didn't become scientists or engineers instead. — jas0n

-ad hominem. We are talking on how we can produce wise claims...not knowledge.
Again last chance....how can a claim be wise while being epistemically uninformed.?
Sorry for holding your feet in the fire, but its a huge demarcation point between philosophy and what you think you do....

But you keep dodging the core issue here.
How can a philosophical conclusion be wise without epistemic foundations.
Would you find wise the suggestion of using the window to exit your apartment if your goal is to save time....without knowing the floor your apartment is located?
You and no other pseudo philosopher has or can answer that....you all just choose to ignore that simple fact. You can not have wise claims without epistemic support.

well there you have it, by dismissing valid critique you allow pseudo philosophy in the philosophical realm.
btw better update your definition of A conspiracy theory.
and of course you need to demonstrate a conspiracy...not just assume it just because it meshes with your beliefs.

I want to know if there's ghost in a house. I can't know unless I go inside that house. Whether there's ultimate comprehension or not, one is forced to attempt it. — Agent Smith

.
-I don't know when you stop beating your wife? can you see the problem in your initial statement?
And how entering that home will allow you to know???
What methods will you use to FALSIFY that universal negative statement?

I want to know if there's ghost in a house. I can't know unless I go inside that house. Whether there's ultimate comprehension or not, one is forced to attempt it. — Agent Smith

-the problem is that you don't know what a ghost is, you don't have the address of the house, you don't have the keys to get in...and you assume it is hunted.
in parallel, we don't know the ontology of the supernatural, we don't have a way to verify it or investigate it and people insist in using this concept as an auxiliary assumption in their "philosophical speculations".
This is not philosophy.

-"It seems to me that you are mostly repeating platitudes."
-Again the selection of words show that you either are unable to understand the issue or you are not willing to disturb the foundations of your beliefs.

It's unfortunate that you didn't participate in the Popper thread. — jas0n

Why is that...do you have a "got you" point that you use in there?

Basic observation statements are not so basic after all. — jas0n

I don't know what that means and how it is relevant to the problems I point out.

The weird thing is that you avoid addressing the actual arguments.
i.e. the role of wisdom, reason and knowledge in philosophical inquiries and why people accept claims to be philosophical without ticking all three boxes.
What you call platitudes are essential questions that people tap dance around them.

-" From my perspective, you haven't shown much interest in doing philosophy. "
-From my perspective you don't have the foundations to distinquish philosophy from pseudo philosophy....and that is not a subjective opinion. I can point to missing standards (logic, knowledge wisdom) in your ideologies and objectively demonstrate their non philosophical nature (if they are missing of course).

You've just evangelized for your own narrow concept of it, and that's why I called it your role. — jas0n

-" From my perspective, you haven't shown much interest in doing philosophy.
You've just evangelized for your own narrow concept of it, and that's why I called it your role. "
-You are feeling sour because of the facts I put on the table.
You don't really have any arguments to kick back so you decide to attack the messenger....talking about logical fallacies and "doing" philosophy"....
Do you have any real arguments that could justify epistemically unfounded principles in Philosophy....like Supernaturalistic ones?
how can you tie conclusions based on supernatural assumption to wisdom, knowledge and logic.????

Beware postmodernist circles ! Don't read the books yourself. That'd be difficult. Buy an easier book that assures you that you aren't missing anything, that it's all a conspiracy. Whole industry of this stuff. Less interesting than the authors they attack, all saying the same thing, hoping common sense and yesterday's thinking is plenty. For practical life, it probably is. But they want to perform the intellectual too, and this kind of book offers a short cut. The starter kit is a bag of six words. Maybe all beginnings are at least as humble. — jas0n

I don't address conspiracy theories.
The book describes observable problems found in our philosophical practices. Philosophy not only fails to experience the success of science, but it reprocesses old dead end ideas again and again.

Maybe a sampling bias. You seem very much interested in metaphysics which is, from what I can tell, yet to mature philosophically like, for instance, epistemology or ethics. We're still in explore mode, haven't yet found a place to set up base if you know what I mean. — Agent Smith

the problem is that we allow the polluting of our metaphysics because they happen to expand outside science. Unfortunately Philosophy doesn't monitor its fields that well (under the pretense of free inquiry) so we end up having pseudo and real philosophy side by side in credible journals.

However, these are textbook cases of missing the forest for the trees or being so absorbed in a task that one, at some point along the way, forgets what one was doing. This doesn't come as a surprise to me at all. We need to use post-its. It's a jungle out there. Too easy to get lost. Nonetheless, your post is on point. Time to do something about it! — Agent Smith

I commend you for your ability to realize that there is a real issue in our philosophy! Ιts something that most people have problems comprehending the rules or straight up deny them.

I think I'm seeing your role in the drama. You are a debunker and a reformer, yes? Are you 100% sure you are qualified? Do you consider Ayn Rand a great philosopher? — jas0n

My role is irrelevant.
There are facts that you all need to consider before declaring an idea "philosophical".
Its the goal of this method identified as sophia (wisdom). In order for a claim to be wise it needs to retain its ties to Logic and Knowledge.
We can not have it both ways.
Pointing obvious flaws and οmmisions is not the role of a "debunker or a reformer". There are objective reasons why astrology and alchemy are not sciences and there is also obvious objective reasons why supernaturalism and magicalism are not Philosophy.

I don't need a special qualification (not to say I don't have it ) to point out obvious facts and criteria on how to demarcate Philosophy from Pseudo Philosophy.
Like everything in life...there is a good version of it and a bad one. Noise from a drum set (lacking rythm, or patterns) isn't "music"..
I understand why people resist these facts but I don't understand why they don't even attempt to justify their choice by not attacking the messenger who points out the obvious issue.

Ayn Rand.To be honest I don't know much of her work. I am not in to chronicling.To be more precise I have a bad memory. I have watched a series of lectures about her but I can't recall many things. What I did like though was her attitude against or in favor of concrete Definitions.

Some say that philosophy and psychology are joined at the hip. — Agent Smith

Well science and philosophy are joined by default. When we have data we call it science , when we don't have data we call it philosophy.
Psychology has a robust body of knowledge but since it is a field under growth many of our interpretations and conclusions are still hypotheses(under evaluation or in need of additional data).
We need not to confuse our psychological needs and Philosophy's purpose.
Again the joy we feel when finally understand something or arriving to factually wise conclusions maybe our core drive to philosophize but it has nothing to do with our urge to seek comfort and pleasure. There is a huge difference between happiness (enabled by knowledge and wisdom) and pleasure (the brief satisfaction of our anxieties).

So you're of the view that most of what's on this forum is pseudo-philosophy? — Agent Smith

-I don't want to be absolute but at least most if not all of the OP and the comments I have checked do not meat the philosophical standards.(zero epistemic evaluation or support of the assumptions used in the hypothesis).

I haven't actually studied the threads on here but from a drive-by they're mostly on positions of other well-known philosophers. That can't be pseudo-philosophy, oui? — Agent Smith

-yes. Many of the old philosophical ideas enjoy a free ride because of the name of their authors.
In addition to that most of those who reproduce those ideas aren't aware that they are just chronicling (cherry picking a specific idea in time) not doing real philosophy.

Perhaps you mean to point out how we've misunderstood the works of these philosophers, but then misunderstanding is, for me at least, a stage one must pass through towards full comprehension, ja? — Agent Smith

- My point is that Science constantly feeds our epistemology and discards those frameworks that do not meet our logical criteria while Philosophy is dead on its tracks in many topics mainly by allowing old "relics" to co exist with real philosophy.
A great source to understand the problem in Philosophy is Mario Bunge critique (https://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Crisis-Reconstruction-Prometheus-Lectures/dp/1573928437) on the 10 problems found in Academia and it function.
here is the list.

• Tenure-Chasing Supplants Substantive Contributions
• Confusion between Philosophizing & Chronicling
• Insular Obscurity / Inaccessibility (to outsiders)
• Obsession with Language too much over Solving Real-World Problems
• Idealism vs. Realism and Reductionism
• Too Many Miniproblems & Fashionable Academic Games
• Poor Enforcement of Validity / Methodology
• Unsystematic (vs. System Building & Ensuring Findings are Worldview Coherent)
• Detachment from Intellectual Engines of Modern Civilization (science, technology, and real-world ideologies that affect mass human thought and action)
• Ivory Tower Syndrome (not talking to experts in other departments and getting knowledge and questions to explore from them or helping them)

What's the difference between philosophy and pseudo-philosophy? I suspect I do it myself. If it works, why not? Feed two birds with one scone. — Agent Smith

I forgot to address your point.
You stated that " I don't mind people using philosophy as a psychological crutch, to validate their own thoughts and feelings."
-The issue is that when claims are designed to validate thoughts and feelings they are no longer philosophical , by definition (etymology and goal of the method).
Philosophy's goal is wisdom. Wisdom can only be achieved through logic and Knowledge.
Logic and knowledge do not have a good track with feelings and comforting thoughts....

I don't deny we all do it.....I only point out that philosophy has nothing to do with that.
You can call it superstitious excuses or religious ideologies but Philosophy is an exercise in frustration. The comforting feeling of understanding things is only a side effect not the main goal of Philosophy...or better it shouldn't be.. (well we can argue its the main motivation behind our efforts).

I have a great lecture on that.
Is Philosophy Stupid? - Richard Carrier - Skepticon 6
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=is+philosophy+stupid
let me quote the bullet points presented in the talk.

1.Pseudo philosophy relies on fallacious arguments to a conclusion
2. it relies on factually false, outdated or undemonstrated premises ( epistemic disconnectedness either on purpose or on ignorance)

3. Isn't corrected when noted(sophistry and total disregard of the rules of Logic).

It's a fact that lots of classic battles are still raging under the tent of philosophy.
To take one side is to think the other is wrong or at least less rational/convincing. — jas0n

You will need to be more specific or else I will be forced to conclude that you are talking about a different topic.
I am talking about ideas that aren't founded on epistemology and have zero reality check in their entire intellectual process (i.e. Supernaturalism, theism etc).
We don't need to think them as wrong. They are just non philosophical.

Assuming that there is one right answer to questions like 'what is science?' or 'what is meaning?' (which may itself be superstition), you're going to have people on the wrong side of an issue who are nevertheless making a case for their position while incorporating criticism. — jas0n

-those are irrelevant topics to the points I make.

As far as I can tell, you are trying to apply scientific standards to philosophy, without realizing that such an application needs to be justified. — jas0n

No I am pointing out that the standards of basic logic should apply in all intellectual endeavors, plus the goal of Philosophy (wisdom) and the method defined by Aristotle demand those high standards.
Its irrational to state that "you" are a lover of wisdom while your syllogism are isolated from established epistemology and logical standards.
Its not a matter of opinion or my burden to justify those standards. Those who assume that can produce wise claims without being founded on logic and knowledge should try to justify their acts.

For instance, Popper's demarcation is not something that can be falsified. Is it therefore superstition? — jas0n

Principles and axioms may be unfalsifiable but their value is validated every time we use them. Popper's rule of thumb has demonstrated its value since we are aware of our empirical limitations in providing proofs . Trying to find evidence that can falsify a claim is the best tool we have and real Pragmatic Necessity.

Is it therefore superstition? — jas0n

lets nott pretend that Logic and axioms are in the same ball park with superstitious claims. If only you could produce the results we have by using the empirical rules of logic. Yes logic is empirically shaped and guided.

Hardly. It's an attempt to articulate what it means to try to not be superstitious. It's a suggested convention. 'Hey guys...maybe this is a way to be less stupid and wrong.' It's a part of philosophy. Alternative conceptions of science are also a part of philosophy. — jas0n

-Those are not even close. Not being able to prove i.e. logical absolutes is not the same with assumed agents or made up concepts. The logical absolutes are verified every time we use them and even if we can not prove them in a mathematical degree of certainty they are instrumentally and epistemically valuable.

You seem to want to use 'Philosophy' for 'my current opinions' or 'the philosophy I like.' That's an aggressive and confusing approach that will interfere with productive conversation. — jas0n

-What you seem to belief is irrelevant. What is philosophy is or isn't is something demarcated by the actual goal of the intellectual process.
The goal set is Wisdom. You can not have wisdom without knowledge and logic.

s truth only good as a means to get power? Or good in itself? Is it pretty ? Why do we care? — jas0n

Is it good to accept a model that is in agreement with facts about reality.i.e Those who ignored the truth claim about gravity and tried to "fly" are a good answer to your question.
Those who embraced the true claim of germs and chose antibiotics instead of prayers....can answer you.

Now on instrumentalism....Instrumental value is just one more way to verify (not prove beyond any doubt) our knowledge claims.
Science doesn't deal with absolute truth or absolute knowledge. Methodological Naturalism makes that clear. The falsifiable nature of frameworks also deny absolute concepts. Those may have their role as our ultimate goals but we need NOT to strawman science.
The same should be true for Philosophy outside science.(or better any philosophical endeavor that skips the steps of Epistemology and science).

Says the Ayn Rand follower. lol. — Xtrix

mentioning Rand's name ...is not an argument against the epistemic success of objective methodologies.....sorry if you are unable to put together a non fallacious argument against objectivity.
(and you can't distinguish the definition of "object" from "objectivity").

So you don't know what normative means. Got it. — Xtrix

lol...I see you skipped quoting the link I provided you on Normative and Descriptive Science!
Honest discussions are not your A game right?

You realize I can scroll back and see what you said, right? Like:

understand what is responsible for science's success not what science should do in order for to meet specific criteria.
Obviously something is awfully right in its methodologies so that we able to communicate from our chairs by using a technology designed to manipulate hidden properties of matter.... — Xtrix

-Yes and you understand that an ad absurdum about iphones doesn't change the fact that technical applications of knowledge enables commercial applications. Iphones is not the proof that Knowledge produced by Science has an objective value. Any company can use science's knowledge on matter to produce goods...not just apple. Commercial application is the symptom of objectivity in scientific knowledge...not the cause or proof....
That was a fallacious argument ..just admit it.

Good God you're embarrassing. — Xtrix

Self critique is a good think...keep it up.

Well since you're claiming you're familiar with them -- what argument or book are you referring to? What "critique" are you referring to?

I won't hold my breath for an answer, since you've never read a word of their work. But I realize your ego won't allow you to admit this. And say "normative critique" and wave your hands. Typical of Ayn Rand enthusiasts. — Xtrix

-I don't find any claim relevant or capable to challenge the ability of science to feed an objective epistemology.
Again its your burden to deconstruct the epistemic status of science by offering the ultimate argument (according to you). hit us!
Btw you are confusing scientific objectivity with Rand's philosophy on objectivism...Logic offers this criterion to Science...not Rand's views....

Because I haven't once claimed, like you have with the authors mentioned, to be familiar with Hoyningen. — Xtrix

lol ..ok childish arguments. Dude science has a work to show something that its critics can not! Whether you agree or not on which principles are responsible for science's epistemic success...its your job to argue in favor or against them...not mine.

You claimed familiarity with their work, and in reality you haven't read a word. You're a liar. It's very easy to see. — Xtrix

I reject their objections because science has prove that they are irrelevant to its methods abilities to provide descriptive generalizations....again you need to learn how the burden of proof works.
I won't waste my time with a magical thinker writing long lines for text ....to see you tap dancing like you did with the link on normative and descriptive science....
I will be happy to talk to a bystander who appears to be honest and interested in challenging his "theology".

So Kuhn's work -- which you've never read and have no clue about -- is equivalent to a geocentric framework. — Xtrix

lol metaphors is not your strong point...right?

I'll ask it outright: what are Kuhn's arguments? What books have you read? Care to cite particular passages that demonstrate how outdated he is? — Xtrix

-again its your job to point out which of Kuhn's arguments qualify, in your opinion,as the best challenge against the epistemic and instrumental value of science mate...you need to do the hard work here.
Well...in order to make you stop whining I will throw you some crumbs
there are ideas of his that agree with (i.e.why scientific knowledge doesn't share characteristics of revolution) but his critique on scientific truth is a huge strawman. Science deals with knowledge...not absolute knowledge or truth.
If you are able to understand this basic difference you will also be able to understand why his arguments address Normative science...not Descriptive science (the one responsible for our epistemic success).

Well you claim to be familiar with them -- because you're a liar. So it's only right to ask for what exactly you find wrong with their arguments. — Xtrix

-and how can you objectively prove this belief of yours? Does my reluctance to not waste time on factually wrong critique proves that I am not familiar with it? Fallacies are not your strong point...right?

Again, the authors were: Thomas Kuhn, Paul Feyerabend and Joseph Rouse. Keep pretending to be an expert on things you have no clue about. Your bullshit doesn't work here, and can be smelled a mile away. — Xtrix

-Argument from false authority fallacy since they argue in favor of a Normative approach in science... plus the facts and critique render their objections irrelevant. Science delivers independently of what Philosophers what to believe.
Philosophy has being shrinking for ages. Science has been claiming most of the fields of inquiry so it is natural to have philosophers kicking back in order to make their occupation relevant....

"Bohr's analysis is wrong...he's way too normative!" See? How easy it is! Brilliant. — Xtrix

I guess you don't really grasp the concepts.
How old are you mate?
Did you go to college?

of course it is relevant. Principles of logic apply on every claim independent of the intentions of the "author". People can dissect irrational claims independent of his wishes or intention. Rules of logic are not suspended just because people hate to see their beliefs being challenged. Why is this so difficult for you?
When I stated "those who make the claim have the burden"...I am not saying they are obliged to participate to the deconstruction of their irrational claims. I am only pointing out to the side responsible for providing soundness to their arguments. ITs a simple case of the Null Hypothesis.

So I am not denying the basic needs of mammals to ease their anxieties, what I am criticizing people's efforts to seek validity by trying to place their superstitions under the umbrella of status called Philosophy

Perhaps you've described thinking in general — jas0n

-correct and I point out that not all "thinking in general" qualifies as a philosophical inquire.

Don't know about you, but I'm a mammal. — jas0n

-that was a long shot but you are guessed right! I am a mammal too !

-" I like soft pillows and social status. "
-Me too but I don't call them different names...

A big part of philosophy is us figuring out how to live together while not starving in the cold with rotting teeth and an intestinal parasite dangling on our thigh. — jas0n

-Correct! Wise claims and ideas on what we learn can save us from suffering and death!

-"

They are all advocates who do not wish to be regarded as such, generally astute defenders, also, of their prejudices, which they dub "truths," — jas0n

-I am not interested in the reasons they are forced to advocate things....I am just pointing out the obvious.Philosophy is an exercise of frustration....if they seek comfort they should turn to Theology, but calling "theology" philosophy ...that is a dishonest practice.

I was referring to those beliefs you were eager to let off the hook by trying to make the burden of proof appear irrelevant IF the believer doesn't have specific intentions mate.

those beliefs people are eager to share in public.....but they are not interested in convincing others for their rationality.

So, the basic idea is that science has two components: — Agent Smith

If you are interested about the components of Science or its nature in general the following lecture is the best you can find.

Systematicity: The Nature of Science
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYK7uhQ_QCk

You sound like any other magical thinker you tap dances in an effort to avoid challenging his faith based beliefs....

Nick, I can save you a lot of time & effort to defend Atheism against Theism, or Physics vs Metaphysics, Science vs Philosophy -- however you frame your besieged belief system. — Gnomon

-None of the above is the subject of this discussion and of the questions I raised.
My point of objection is the inability of people to distinguish valid philosophical questions and topics from pseudo philosophy.
The bad practice of people to assume what they should be able to conclude and the total ignorance of the role of epistemology and science in every philosophical inquiry.

I don't know what you think you have heard but there is a crisis in Philosophy for so many years because humans use the field as a comforting pillow to rest their anxieties and seek validity by just stating "its philosophy". Things are not that simple.

You haven't once posted links or passages about Kuhn or any of the other authors Joshs cited — Xtrix

So i have to quote philosophical shenanigans of people who were trying to keep academic philosophy relevant(and they justify their paycheck) through arguments from ignorance fallacies!!!!
Great demand!

don't fool yourself...I am not posting in these forums because I want to convince people for the validity of my personal preferences...I just believe they are objective and true and I don't need other people to challenge them....lol

No. Metaphysics is specifically exempted from scientific analysis. So, scientific verification is out of the question. — Gnomon

Factually wrong statement by Gnomon.
There is this thing called scientific hypotheses. Those who are verified are promoted to scientific theories, those who are falsified are discarded.
Obviously Gnomon ignores what "metaphysics" means and why all our hypotheses in science are Metaphysics. Science is Philosophy!

Here is a great talk by Richard Carrier on what is Metaphysics, what is Philosophy and what is pseudo philosophy.(supernaturalism).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLvWz9GQ3PQ

-Obviously you aren't. You are not even making a philosophical case since you are arguing for the supernatural!!! — Nickolasgaspar
In your prejudicial imagination. — Gnomon

-No that is a fact. Supernatural presumptions leading to supernatural conclusions do no provide wisdom that we can act upon inform our actions and expand our understanding!
Its by definition pseudo philosophy...since zero wisdom is produced.

FWIW, see my reply to ↪Agent Smith
:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/678622 — Gnomon

-I just read the first line and my eyes glazed over !

-"Metaphysics is specifically exempted from scientific analysis. So, scientific verification is out of the question. "
So you don't know what a scientific hypothesis is..????

That people have different motivations for presenting their ideas. — Janus

nothing new...why are you saying this obvious fact to us?
If one is not interested in convincing people ...good for him...the idea remains fair game for dissection

The points you make are based on a narrow conception of both people's motivations for presenting ideas and the epistemological status of the ideas they present. — Janus

-you are seriously confused. I never made any points on people's motivations mate.
You were the one who tried to let people beliefs off the hook by presenting their motivation as an excuse to go around posting their beliefs without accepting any critique.

Don't worry; if I think that people are incorrectly imagining that the beliefs they are presenting are rationally justifiable, I will be the first to let them know, — Janus

-So your innervation had no other goal just to play the wise guy on an obvious matter?

No need to be defensive; what are you trying to defend? I haven't constructed any accusations, out of thin air or otherwise, that I am aware of. — Janus

-You are the one being defensive when you bring up subjective intentions to protect people's irrational beliefs.

-" I haven't constructed any accusations, out of thin air or otherwise, that I am aware of."
-only red herrings...Why should we care what people want or don't want to achieve in a forum? The rule of the burden of proof applies independent of their intentions. We are free to point out the side burying the burden...why is this so difficult for you?

Just out of interest, what is the assumption upon which you base your belief that it is necessary or desirable to identify and correct all your irrational beliefs? — Janus

-I prefer to hold true beliefs, its my vice.....so personal preference. I find being informed to be helpful.

As far as I can tell, you're mistaken about the Null Hypothesis. It's a statistical tool applied to populations and is designed to assess causality. — Agent Smith

lol no...its a logical standards that has an application in statistics and in any hypothesis.
well since no one today seems to be able to google a statement before criticizing it I will chip in a link.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMTUsOd9IuE

This statement makes zero sense. I can understand a connection between prayer and cure, between smoking and cancer, but between existence and god, what does that even mean? — Agent Smith

-it means that god doesn't exist is the null hypothesis and through investigation we need to provide the evidence for the rejection of the default position.

— Janus

Of course you will find many who feel compelled to argue that their beliefs, although neither logically entailed by anything, or empirically evidenced by anything; are nonetheless rationally justifiable. Others may just present their ideas (whether they count as beliefs or merely entertainments) in case someone may find them interesting or inspiring or whatever. You know...like poetry... — Janus

-yes people don't react well to criticism and they are not interested to be reasonable or to hold true beliefs....what is your point? When they go public they will get their critique either they are interested or not...period. Those who make the claim have the burden independent of their intentions and goals.

We all hold irrational beliefs; or at least beliefs which are not strictly rationally supportable. If you think you are exempt from that, then there's an irrational belief right there. — Janus

-red herrings is your A game?
I hold irrational beliefs,but in contrast to those who you defend, I am interested in identifying and correcting them.
Try addressing the points made by your interlocutor...don't' construct accusations out of thin air mate.