The argument from incredulity

Is a logical fallacy where someone concludes that since they can’t believe that a certain concept is true, then it must be false and vice versa.

Its 2 basic forms:

“I can’t imagine how X can be true; therefore, X must be false.”

“I can’t imagine how X can be false; therefore, X must be true.”

329

1.87K reads

MORE IDEAS ON THIS

Basic structure of an argument from incredulity

Premise 1: I can’t explain or imagine how proposition X can be true.

Premise 2: if a certain proposition is true, then I must be able to explain or imagine how that can be.

Conclusions: proposition X is false.

302

2.52K reads

It’s ok to be incredulous

... 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 ...

271

1.8K reads

Counter the argument from incredulity

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...

308

1.69K reads

CURATED FROM