Reply #38: There are more distinctions: What I'd see. What you'd see.

[Festivito]

How many worlds are there in a fishbowl of ten fish? Thirteen?

What I would describe as rational, irrational, or non-rational could be completely different from what you would describe with these words. As example, my significant other might see some line of reasoning as completely rational, where I see it as completely irrational.

Oh, your change. I guess I digressed. If you changed irrational to non-rational, I'd agree also. Note that you did not say that you would disagree if it remained with the word irrational that is a stronger superset of non-rational, so of course it would fit.

Still, if I embrace the most outrageous irrationality, I am not required to drop further rationale nor logic. In fact doing so might send me to a night alone.

I'm a little unsure about the rest of your statements. You seem passionate and even a little miffed. Miffed at people who ... consider themselves on parr with scientists? Perhaps? And, perhaps this won't allow you to address assumptions unless you address it now as the discussion might come to someone saying "...you can ..(not).. prove me wrong," while thinking what they want to think and that their thoughts are as good as another person: a scientist no less?

Look. I'm mad at the Bush administration changing scientific results. But, they do that for money, not for heartfelt concerns for US.

As for creationists, it's religion. They have a right to free practice and to choose, even if you hate what they choose. After all, they might also hate what you choose.

Should you be bothered by zealously spiritual people, try kindly excusing yourself. We all need a tough skin here on DU and in life. Unless it's the dinner table, in which case let them know that politics, religion and sex have no place where digestion is important.

ON EDIT: Used square braces. Oops.