[on why "argument from personal incredulity" isn't a logical fallacy]
How's it a logical fallacy? Logic is by definition a consideration of incredulity. And incredulity is by nature personal. Therefor logic IS personal incredulity.
28 comments
Um, no.ever be true, so therefore it can't be true regardless of evidence. The logical fallacy can also go in reverse by refusing to consider a negative, and asserting the positive as a result.
It's a logical fallacy because it is based on belief without evidence.
NB Sandman: logic does not require empirical evidence. It's just a way to evaluate statements for truth and consistency.true , but it is valid.
Of course, in order to determine whether something conforms to what happens in the real world you do of course need some empirical observation!
As for personal incredulity, this page explains it quite nicely.
Logic is by definition a consideration of incredulity.
Udsuna's arguments aren't nearly as bad as many we've seen here, I think; it's just that his premises are based on many underlying unproved (or even disproved) assumptions, some of which may be yet unverbalized.
Udsuna's arguments aren't nearly as bad as many we've seen here, I think
Raistlin: Okay, well, I'm sure you're more familiar with his work than I am. Perhaps I'm just too dazzled by fairly decent grammar and spelling (rather rare among the fundies we see here) to be objective here.
Despard, you are correct, I mis-spoke. It should have read "Logic is a position based upon empirical evidence or
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
