Difference between revisions of "Argument from incredulity"

From Issuepedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m (Fallacies -> fallacies; tweaks)
(references: rationalwiki, wikipedia, nothing in lesswrong; some rewriting of overview)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
==Overview==
+
==About==
[[category:logical fallacies]]An [[argument from incredulity]] is a [[logical fallacy]] in which a statement is made which, as stated, sounds so incredible that the listener is willing to believe that it is impossible without hearing any further evidence.
+
[[category:logical fallacies]]An [[argument from incredulity]] is a [[logical fallacy]] in which a claim is refuted on the basis that it merely ''sounds'' so "incredible" or "unbelievable" that any further evidence for the claim can be simply disregarded.
 +
 
 +
This is largely a form of [[emotional argument]], combining [[peer pressure]], [[argument by ridicule]], and [[guilt by association]]: the refuter has scorned the claimant as ridiculous and unbelievable, and listeners to not want to earn the refuter's scorn as well by seeming to embrace the claim in any way -- even if only to ask to hear the claimant's [[evidence]] before deciding.
 
==Links==
 
==Links==
* [http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA100.html Claim CA100]: the [[argument from incredulity]] applied to [[anti-Darwinism]]
+
===Reference===
 +
* {{rationalwiki}} sees this as a kind of "appeal to the unimaginative"
 +
* {{wikipedia}} redirects to [[argument from ignorance]]
 +
* {{!in|lwwiki}}: no equivalent page as of 2010-02-02
 +
===Applications===
 +
* [http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA100.html Claim CA100]: the [[argument from incredulity]] in the service of [[anti-Darwinism]]

Latest revision as of 22:57, 2 February 2010

About

An argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy in which a claim is refuted on the basis that it merely sounds so "incredible" or "unbelievable" that any further evidence for the claim can be simply disregarded.

This is largely a form of emotional argument, combining peer pressure, argument by ridicule, and guilt by association: the refuter has scorned the claimant as ridiculous and unbelievable, and listeners to not want to earn the refuter's scorn as well by seeming to embrace the claim in any way -- even if only to ask to hear the claimant's evidence before deciding.

Links

Reference

Applications