Become an active member of our fallacy-discussing community (or just become a lurker!)

Ad Fidentia

argumentum ad fidentia

(also known as: against self-confidence)

Description: Attacking the person’s self-confidence in place of the argument or the evidence.

Logical Form:

Person 1 claims that Y is true, but is person 1 really sure about that?

Therefore, Y is false.

Example #1:

Rick: I had a dream last night that I won the lottery!  I have $1000 saved up, so I am buying 1000 tickets!

Vici: You know, dreams are not accurate ways to predict the future; they are simply the result of random neurons firing.

Rick: The last time I checked, you are no neurologist or psychologist, so how sure are you that I am not seeing the future?

Vici: It’s possible you can be seeing the future, I guess.

Explanation: Although Vici is trying to reason with his friend, Rick attempts to weaken Vici’s argument by making Vici more unsure of his position.  This is a fallacious tactic by Rick, and if Vici falls for it, fallacious reasoning on his part.

Example #2:

Chris: You claim that you don’t believe in the spirit world that is all around us, with spirits coming in and out of us all the time.  How can you be sure this is not the case?  Are you 100% certain?

Joe: Of course not, how can I be?

Chris: Exactly! One point for me!

Joe: What?

Explanation: This is a common fallacy among those who argue for the supernatural or anything else not falsifiable.  If Joe was not that reasonable of a thinker, then he might start to question the validity of his position, not based on any new counter evidence presented, but a direct attack on his self-confidence.  Fortunately for Joe, he holds no dogmatic beliefs and is perfectly aware of the difference between possibilities and probabilities (see also appeal to possibility).

Exception: When one claims certainty for something where certainty is unknowable, it is your duty to point it out.

Tip: Have confidence that you are probably or even very probably right, but avoid dogmatic certainty at all costs in areas where certainty is unknowable.


This a logical fallacy frequently used on the Internet. No academic sources could be found.

Questions about this fallacy? Ask our community!

Uncomfortable Ideas: Facts don't care about feelings. Science isn't concerned about sensibilities. And reality couldn't care less about rage.

This is a book about uncomfortable ideas—the reasons we avoid them, the reasons we shouldn’t, and discussion of dozens of examples that might infuriate you, offend you, or at least make you uncomfortable.

Many of our ideas about the world are based more on feelings than facts, sensibilities than science, and rage than reality. We gravitate toward ideas that make us feel comfortable in areas such as religion, politics, philosophy, social justice, love and sex, humanity, and morality. We avoid ideas that make us feel uncomfortable. This avoidance is a largely unconscious process that affects our judgment and gets in the way of our ability to reach rational and reasonable conclusions. By understanding how our mind works in this area, we can start embracing uncomfortable ideas and be better informed, be more understanding of others, and make better decisions in all areas of life.

Get 20% off this book and all Bo's books*. Use the promotion code: websiteusers

* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.

Get the Book