The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy where someone assumes that if they can't believe that a certain concept is true, then it must be false, and vice versa. For example, if someone doesn't understand how evolution works, they might use the argument from incredulity in order to claim that the theory of evolution must be incorrect, since they are unable to see how it could possibly be true.
... and to bring this up as part of an argument. The issue with doing so occurs when this incredulity isn’t justified or supported by concrete information, and when this lack of belief is used in order to assume that a preferred personal explanation must be the right one, despite the lack of proof.
At the same time, it’s also important to remember that it’s possible that the person using the argument from incredulity is right, despite the fact that their reasoning is flawed.
Explain why this sort of reasoning is fallacious: namely the fact that your opponent’s inability to explain a certain phenomenon or to understand a certain theory, does not invalidate current explanations for it.
Shift the burden of proof back to your opponent: ask them to support their initial assertion, and explain why they are incredulous, and why they think that this validates their position.
If possible, you should show that there is scientific evidence that can be used in order to explain the phenomenon that’s being discussed.
In arguments, few things are more frustrating than when you realize that someone is using bad logic, but you can't quite identify what the problem is.This rarely happens with the more well-known logical fallacies. For example, when someone in an argument starts criticizing the other person's reputat...
In this fallacy, someone behaves in a way that negatively affects others but then gets upset when others criticize their behavior. They will reply with a "mind your own business." For instance, someone who doesn't see a reason to bathe, but then boards a full 10-hour flight.