F050 • Informal - Relevance/Appeals
Also known as: Appeal to Incredulity, Personal Incredulity, Argument from Personal Incredulity
We encounter something we cannot imagine being true -- it strains our intuition, outruns our experience, or just feels wrong -- and we take that feeling of disbelief as evidence that the thing itself is not real. Our personal difficulty with an idea gets quietly promoted to a judgment about reality.
Loading examples...
Our intuitions are built from experience, and experience is necessarily limited. We have spent our lives in a narrow band of scales, speeds, and complexities, and our sense of what is plausible is calibrated to that band. Quantum mechanics does not feel right. Deep time does not feel graspable. The idea that a human body is mostly empty space does not match what our hands tell us when we touch a table. When something falls outside our experiential range, the feeling of incredulity that arises is not a signal about the world -- it is a signal about the limits of our mental models. That distinction is genuinely hard to maintain in the moment. Incredulity feels substantive. When your gut says 'that cannot be right,' it feels like your gut is telling you something about reality, not about itself. And much of the time, our intuitions are reliable -- they are, after all, the product of millions of years of calibration. The problem is that they were calibrated for a world of medium-sized objects moving at medium speeds over medium timescales, and many of the most important truths about reality live outside that range.
| When incredulity prompts asking for evidence or explanation (questioning, not concluding). |
| When something contradicts well-established, verified scientific principles. |
| As a starting point for investigation, not as a conclusion. |
| Notice when 'I cannot imagine how this could be true' starts to feel like 'this is probably not true.' The first is a statement about you; the second is a claim about reality. The gap between them is where this pattern lives. |
| Watch for the emotional weight of incredulity. When disbelief arrives with a sense of certainty -- a feeling that the thing in question is not just surprising but actually wrong -- that certainty is worth questioning. |
| Pay attention to the subject matter. If you are reasoning about things that operate at scales, speeds, or complexities far outside your everyday experience, your intuitions are working outside their training data, and they may not be reliable. |
| Ask yourself: am I rejecting this because I have evidence against it, or because I cannot picture how it could work? Those are very different reasons, and only one of them is about the claim itself. |
| Notice when wonder or awe slides into an argument. 'How amazing that X works this way' and 'X could not possibly work this way' feel similar in the moment but point in opposite directions. |
| Confusing this with legitimate skepticism. Asking for explanation or evidence is not the same as arguing from incredulity. 'I do not understand how this works -- can you explain?' is a request. 'I do not understand how this works, therefore it does not' is the fallacy. |
| Thinking that all counterintuitive claims should be accepted without question. Some counterintuitive claims are wrong. The point is not to suppress your incredulity but to recognize that it is not, by itself, evidence. Incredulity should prompt investigation, not conclusion. |
| Not recognizing when incredulity is well-calibrated. If a claim violates well-established and thoroughly verified principles, your skepticism may be entirely appropriate. The distinction is between 'this contradicts my intuition' and 'this contradicts extensive, well-replicated evidence.' |
| Argument from Incredulity |
|---|
| Rejecting a claim because one personally finds it difficult to believe, hard to imagine, or counterintuitive, rather than providing evidence against it. The argument takes the form 'I can't understand how X could be true, therefore X is false.' |
| Personal inability to understand or imagine something has no bearing on its truth value. Reality is not constrained by the limits of individual imagination or intuition. Many true things are counterintuitive (quantum mechanics, relativity, evolution). One's personal difficulty comprehending something often reflects limitations in one's knowledge, not limitations in reality. |
Hover to see definition, click to view full details