Vlad,
That's enough to be guilty of argument from incredulity.....
Oh dear. No it isn’t:
An "
Argument from incredulity, also known as argument from personal incredulity, appeal to common sense, or the divine fallacy,[1] is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition must be false because it contradicts one's personal expectations or beliefs, or is difficult to imagine.
Arguments from incredulity can take the form:
1. I cannot imagine how F could be true; therefore F must be false.
2. I cannot imagine how F could be false; therefore F must be true.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity#:~:text=Argument%20from%20incredulity%2C%20also%20known,or%20is%20difficult%20to%20imagine.
Incredulity though can also be “the state of being unwilling or unable to believe something”
for good reason – in this case the good reason is the paucity of evidence for the claim.
Try to understand this so you can avoid the same mistake in future.
The business about buying a bridge is horses laugh fallacy.
Wrong again The “horse’s laugh fallacy” (ie, the appeal to ridicule) is as follows:
“
Appeal to ridicule is often found in the form of comparing a nuanced circumstance or argument to a laughably commonplace occurrence or to some other irrelevancy on the basis of comedic timing, wordplay, or making an opponent and their argument the object of a joke. This is a rhetorical tactic that mocks an opponent's argument or standpoint, attempting to inspire an emotional reaction (making it a type of appeal to emotion) in the audience and to highlight any counter-intuitive aspects of that argument, making it appear foolish and contrary to common sense. This is typically done by making a mockery of the argument's foundation that represents it in an uncharitable and oversimplified way. The person using the tactic often utilizes sarcasm in their argument.[2]”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridiculeYou though don’t have a “a nuanced circumstance or argument” to be fallaciously challenged with “a laughably commonplace occurrence or … some other irrelevancy on the basis of comedic timing, wordplay, or making an opponent and their argument the object of a joke”. On the contrary, you just assert your claims (of an “encounter’ for example) to be true and that’s the end of the matter – in other words, offering to sell you a bridge rests on
precisely the same credulity I demand for my bridge as you demand for your encounter.
Again, try to understand this so you can avoid the same mistake in future.
Just as you persuade yourself that you haven’t encountered leprechauns right?
According to you I would have had to persuade my self i'd met them first. You are moving the goalposts here.
Wrong again – see whether you can work out for yourself where you went wrong again there. I’ll give you a clue though: when you shift the burden of proof by claiming “I suppose you
then test it by trying to persuade your self you hadn't encountered it” that same “
then test it” could apply to
any claim of
any encounter with
anything. Again, try to understand this too so you can avoid the same mistake in future.
In this case i'm suggesting that you self explore and that it might be a first for you.
I was on an aeroplane yesterday travelling about 34,000 ft. Even if it’d had a sun roof I doubt I’d have been able to spot how far this point had gone over your head. The POINT here is that just claiming to have “self-explored” a narrative you then found to be persuasive tells neither you nor anyone else the tiniest thing about whether or not your conclusion is
justified.
As I explained to you (and you just ignored) countless mystics and suchlike have “self-explored” many notions for much longer and deeper than you have “self-explored” your pet superstitions and reached different conclusions entirely. (Even) you should be able to deduce from this that self-exploration is epistemically worthless unless you find an objective means to validate your conclusions – you know, the problem you always run away from.
Once again, try to understand this too so you can avoid the same mistake in future.
