RationalWiki's 2018 Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff — we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

If everyone seeing this today donates $5, we will meet our goal for 2018.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!

Donations so far: $2835Goal: $5000

Talk:Argument from incredulity

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Moore's paradox[edit]

Article says Another form, the argument from personal incredulity, takes the form "I can't believe P, therefore not-P.". Isn't the rejection of that principle, i.e. the article's claim, roughly equivalent to Moore's paradox? It is not possible for me to believe it, but it's true is an instance of Moore's paradox; hence, to avoid Moore's paradox, it seems reasonable to infer, from the fact that I can't possibly believe something, that it is actually false. Which implies, that rather than being logically fallacious, the argument from personal incredulity is actually a valid form of inference. (((Zack Martin))) 12:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Argument from credulity[edit]

Is this such a thing? Quick example: Singularity. More complex example: since it's possible to without mechanical assistance nail 100 out of 100 full court baskets and the human race is producing better basketball players all the time, someone will eventually make 100 out of 100 full court baskets. --Dr. Swordopolis (talk) 22:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Qualia example removal[edit]

Removed text: "Another example is a scientific explanation of personal phenomenal experiences or "qualia". Because they do not know how physical processes could produce qualia, many philosophers conclude that therefore qualia cannot ever be explained."

I think this should stay, though it may need better explained. Comprehending or explaining qualia does in fact take a stretch of imagination, and it is something that cannot currently be quantified, and is also part of the discussions relating to strong AI and transhuman ideas of brain uploading or human-machine hybridization. Trick (talk) 15:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
I think examples should be clear-cut cases, not stuff that's still undecided. After all, there's nothing particularly special about that example. I guess we can put something like (my wording sucks): "Some people don't understand how many non-conscious neurons in the brain can produce a mind and conclude that something else must be involved. Super Dude,Where's my car? 06:01, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


Some content from http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 04:30, 22 November 2015 (UTC)'s edits[edit]

  • Personal incredulity states that one's own deductive logic is the ultimate, universal scale upon which all ideas must be judged. For example: "I've never seen God, so God must not exist." This assumption of absolute logic also tends to go beyond the individual, elevating current human knowledge and logic to a supreme status in the entire Universe (and beyond): "The existence of a God cannot be proven using our scientific method. Therefore, God does not exist." These arguments eliminate the possibility that there could be a reality outside of space, time, and matter. Throughout history, however, human knowledge has necessarily been consistently revised in order to align with the facts that each new discovery reveals.

Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 16:32, 15 December 2015 (UTC)