incredulity
Argument from incredulity, God of the Gaps
The argument, "I don't believe that ..." is particularly common amongst creationists and proids.
This is a form of argument from ignorance in which the incredulous debater refuses to believe in a particular line of evidence (denial), or an interpretation of evidence that supports an alternate conclusion to that which the debater favors. The argument from incredulity essentially takes the position that personal reluctance to believe that something is true (or false) is a good reason for insisting that it is not true (or false). The fallacy lies in the segue from opinion to justification. The fact remains that while incredulity may be justified in that disbelief may have good grounds, it also may not be justified. The problem is simply that incredulity alone is not sufficient argument for or against a fact or interpretation.
In the history of human attempts to understand their universe, supernatural explanations – Gods of the Gaps – provided a framework for interpretation in the absense of scientific comprehension.
The argument, "I don't believe that ..." is particularly common amongst creationists and proids.
This is a form of argument from ignorance in which the incredulous debater refuses to believe in a particular line of evidence (denial), or an interpretation of evidence that supports an alternate conclusion to that which the debater favors. The argument from incredulity essentially takes the position that personal reluctance to believe that something is true (or false) is a good reason for insisting that it is not true (or false). The fallacy lies in the segue from opinion to justification. The fact remains that while incredulity may be justified in that disbelief may have good grounds, it also may not be justified. The problem is simply that incredulity alone is not sufficient argument for or against a fact or interpretation.
In the history of human attempts to understand their universe, supernatural explanations – Gods of the Gaps – provided a framework for interpretation in the absense of scientific comprehension.
Labels: argument from incredulity, biological evolution, creationism, denial, God of the Gaps, intelligent design, science
posted | 11/16/2007 10:46:00 AM
1 Comments:
The comment section will be used as a glossary, obviating some of the need to move around the site. If the website’s name shows as blue, you can return to the main page by clicking on “Godspell Follies” or “Home”.
idism = intelligent design theory
idist = intelligent design proponent, for example Behe or Dembski
fodi = fellow of the Discovery Institute, one of the organizations set up for the purpose of promoting intelligent design theory
proid = advocate of intelligent design theory, often an Internet debater
For a full explanation of these terms, see the Illogical Deceit Theory post at: http://refutingid.blogspot.com/2007/12/illogical-deceit-theory.html
Post a Comment
<< Home