Argument from Incredulity
An Argument from Incredulity, also known as the Argument from Personal Incredulity or Appeal to Personal Incredulity, is a logical fallacy.
It’s a flawed way of reasoning that occurs when someone concludes a claim must be false or true simply because they find it difficult to believe or imagine it to be otherwise.
An Argument from Incredulity works by:
- The core idea: An idea is dismissed or accepted based on a personal difficulty in comprehending it, rather than on objective evidence, logical reasoning, or the inherent truth of the proposition.
- The structure: Arguments from incredulity generally follow one of these forms:
- “Because X is hard to imagine as true, then X must be false.”
- “Because X is hard to imagine as false, then X must be true.”
- Why it’s a fallacy: The ability to believe or understand a statement does not provide information about whether the statement is true or false. The validity of a claim should be based on evidence and sound reasoning, not a person’s personal incredulity.
- Examples:
- Dismissing a scientific theory because one can’t imagine how it works.
- Rejecting the idea of complex communication in certain animals simply because it seems unbelievable.
- Assuming something must be false because it doesn’t align with existing beliefs.
- Relationship to Argument from Ignorance: The argument from incredulity is often mentioned alongside the Argument from Ignorance, which focuses on the lack of evidence as proof for or against a claim. In contrast, the Argument from Incredulity stems from a personal lack of belief or understanding.
In summary, the Argument from Incredulity is a reliance on personal feelings and limited understanding rather than objective facts and logical evaluation when determining the truth or falsity of a statement.
the Fine-Tuning Argument and the Argument from Incredulity are not the same, though they are sometimes confused or related. The fine-tuning argument is a specific argument for the existence of God based on the observation that the physical constants and laws of the universe appear to be finely tuned for life, according to RationalWiki. The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy where someone dismisses a claim because they personally find it hard to believe.
Fine-Tuning Argument
Premise: The universe’s physical laws and constants are set within a very narrow range that allows for the existence of life. If these constants were slightly different, life as we know it would be impossible.
Conclusion: This precise tuning suggests a designer or creator (often identified with God) who intentionally set these constants.
Nature: It’s a form of the Teleological Argument, which argues for a designer based on evidence of design or purpose in the universe.
Key Concepts: It often involves concepts like the Anthropic Principle (that the universe must be compatible with conscious observers) and the improbability of life arising by chance.
Some people use the argument from incredulity to dismiss the fine-tuning argument, arguing that the idea of a finely tuned universe is too complex or unbelievable to be true. However, the fine-tuning argument itself is not an argument from incredulity. It relies on observations about the universe and attempts to draw a conclusion about a potential designer, not just on personal disbelief. The argument from incredulity is a fallacy that can be used against any argument, including the fine-tuning argument.