Appeal to incredulity

Part 4.2 of the Critical Thinking Series (CTS): The Fallacies

AKA: argument from personal astonishment, argument from personal incredulity, personal incredulity)

Definition:

Because it is difficult to understand (or a person is unwilling to understand), the argument is therefore not true or flawed. This attitude entirely defeats the purpose of debate and seeking knowledge. This type of fallacy is often used to support a divine explanation. It is often used alongside Appeal to Ignorance to support a personal belief, especially if that belief is incorporated into their identity.

Caveats:

This is not simply requiring extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims; nor is this a reasonable suspension of belief until one can acquire enough knowledge to evaluate the claim. It is an outright dismissal of evidence through ignorance and/or a lack of willingness to learn.

Examples:

Adam Baum: The big bang theory is currently the best scientific explanation for how the universe came to be. This explanation is backed by several independent lines of evidence that have been vetted through extensive scientific peer-review, analysis, and observation.

Anna Khonda: The physics is too confusing. Besides, what do those “experts” know, anyhow? Big Bang? HA! If I wanted one of those, I’d go to a gun range that doubles as a strip club.

It’s clear Anna knows how to have a good time. The subject of cosmic origins, however, is less simple. To understand this beyond a superficial level requires several years of dedicated learning and research, so disagreeing with the scientific consensus because it is complicated is not a SOUND reason for disagreement. (FYI deferring to expertise (especially on complicated topics) is not the same thing as Argumetn from Authority.)

Non-example:

Joy Kil: What do you think is the best way to fix the national debt?

Norma Leigh Lucid: I think putting an end to overspending is key, but I don’t have enough information to propose how that ought to be implemented.

Norma didn’t commit the fallacy; she merely showed the limitation of her understanding.  

How to avoid committing this:

Ask yourself if you oppose the argument because you dislike it? If you dislike it, now ask: do you understand the counterargument? If no, I recommend inquiry rather than dismissal.

Some tips on how to respond:

1) Work with psychology, not against it. People often use arguments from incredulity for psychological reasons. Ask yourself the following questions:

a) Is the person using this because they do not want their world view to collapse? If that’s the case, then you’re fighting against the psychological will of that person to preserve their identity. If that’s the case, try framing a counter-argument that marries the logic of the evidence with a way for that person to retain their identity. Do not attack their worldview or else you might cause them to entrench even further. Moreover, accept that you will only get so far. Personal identity is a powerful thing.

Example: Please don’t get me wrong, I’m not trying to discredit your entire faith in religion here, I’m merely focusing on evolution. Many scientists are also religious, and for them, they find it more satisfying that if there is a great creator, that this he/she created a universe so wonderfully complex that life not only flourishes, it can arise, adapt, change, and evolve without intervention. 

b) Is the person using this because they are just frustrated at the complexity and (ironically) do not want to seem dumb? Try to empathize with this position and try to walk them through the basics of the evidence. If possible, try using questions that lead them to the answer. People respond well if they can “discover” the answer rather than being “told” the answer.

Example: I understand, sometimes the complexity around some issues/questions/answers overwhelms me too. I may not know everything about it, but I am familiar with it. I might be able to help answer a specific question or two. 

2) Ask for evidence. Show that evidence is key, that this isn’t personal, and that you are open to the possibility (even if it is unlikely) that they are correct.

Example: Hi X! I am always open to credible evidence. Do you have a good source you can share?   

3) Teach your argument. Expound upon your argument by explaining the evidence and scientific understanding of the point. If possible, show where they are correct, and that it is okay to be imperfect.

Example: I’m not a mind reader, but from my position, it looks like you may misunderstand what the second law of thermodynamics is about. I think I had the same misunderstanding a while back too. You are correct, entropy leads to “disorder” over time, but the second part of the rule is equally important: in a closed system. This allows for a temporary “order” to occur in open systems, making life possible. Let me explain…

Be sure to like comment and share!

Did you love it and want to help support Sgt Scholar? Patrons of Sgt Scholar enjoy benefits such as early access to articles, helping decide the topics of coming articles and more. Click here to support Sgt Scholar:  https://www.patreon.com/sgtscholar