Argument From Incredulity

A similar fallacy, known as argument from incredulity, appeal to common sense, or personal incredulity,asserts that because something is so incredible or difficult to imagine, it is wrong. Arguments from incredulity are called non sequiturs. Arguments from incredulity can take the form:

I cannot imagine how P could be true; therefore P must be false.
I cannot imagine how P could be false; therefore P must be true.

Arguments from incredulity happen when people make their inability to comprehend or make sense of a concept their argument.

This fallacy is often invoked in the evolution debate. For example, Irreducible Complexity is often dismissed as an argument from incredulity. There is already a thread discussing the mechanisms of evolution so I don't want this to be a re-run of that. What I am doing here, initially, is posting some content that exposes the incredible workings of life, from the cell upwards, and admitting that my credulity is indeed stretched when I consider how that might have come about by unintelligent, random processes. But my personal incredulity is not the issue here. I am somewhat gratified to hear those working in these areas admit to their own incredulity, as this presenter does at a certain point in the following video (not that I'm suggesting he is invoking intelligent design in any way - he is not). I hope others can post more examples but I hope the discussion of mechanisms can remain in the other thread (or another new thread, if preferred).

Here's the video of some of the animations Drew Berry used in the above TED Talk but in more detail. No less incredible, I might suggest.

And here's another animation from the same people, this time about epigenetics.

This is another animation about the inner workings of the cell. This time about how the mitochondria function as the power plants in each cell. Again, if this were scaled up we would regard it as a super-efficient industrial plant.

This is another animation about the inner workings of the cell. This time about how the mitochondria function as the power plants in each cell. Again, if this were scaled up we would regard it as a super-efficient industrial plant.

Incredible...

As soon as someone mentions ‘the hard problem of consciousness’, I think of the argument from incredulity.

As soon as someone mentions ‘the hard problem of consciousness’, I think of the argument from incredulity.

Perhaps you could make an exception and venture beyond your usual one-liner? Are you saying there is no hard problem or that you don't understand it? Why is it an argument from incredulity? Do you think that consciousness has been explained already or that it is an illusion? 

Going back to the definition, the argument from incredulity "asserts that because something is so incredible or difficult to imagine, it is wrong." So how do you apply that definition to your point?

I don't want to derail my own thread here and make it another debate about consciousness but it would be good to confirm that we are on the same page when it comes to the subject title of the thread.

Here's another video, this time about signals from the external environment reaching receptors on the cell wall and being passed through to enable gene activation in the DNA and produce new proteins for body tissue repair. Again, the organisation and choreography is amazing (a word used in the video).

As soon as someone mentions ‘the hard problem of consciousness’, I think of the argument from incredulity.

The idea is promoted with the assumption that consciousness from physical processes is beyond credulity.

The idea is promoted with the assumption that consciousness from physical processes is beyond credulity.

Sticking with your one-liners then? Still not sure you are making your point though. 

My point was that incredulity may be justified when it comes to considering the explanations being offered.