Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."
Get all EIGHT of Bo's printed books, all autographed*. Save over $50!
* This offer is for residents of United States and Canada only.
|
I want to thank you for drawing attention to the Argument from Incredulity, OR, should this be "the Appeal to Incredulity." I had not thought of this argument or appeal before - I see it in world and national events where the application of it is used to nullify certain explanations for events that have occurred of "incredible" nature.
Your hypothetical example is okay, but here is a clear cut real event example that demonstrates the Appeal to Incredulity very clearly. (1) WTC building 7 was not hit by a plane yet collapsed in its own footprint at the speed of gravity with visible ejections of pulverized debris coming out along the vertical support column areas. -- Controlled demolition is the only explanation for this. (2) It is incredulous that those in some realm of authority would do such a thing. (how, why, for what reason would someone do this - I just cannot believe it) -- [yet it happened.] (3) Because this is incredulous, "they" (whoever is being accused) therefore did not do it. (even though if one views the collapse there is no other explanation) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mamvq7LWqRU <> Study finds fire did not cause the collapse: “The principal conclusion of our study is that fire did not cause the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11, contrary to the conclusions of NIST and private engineering firms that studied the collapse. The secondary conclusion of our study is that the collapse of WTC 7 was a global failure involving the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building.” https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2019/09/06/the-official-story-of-the-collapse-of-wtc-building-7-lies-in-ruins/ <> |
answered on Saturday, Sep 21, 2019 12:25:57 PM by JW |
Comments |
|