What is exactly "personal incredulity fallacy"?

[teo123]

I wanted to hear your thoughts, what exactly is "personal incredulity fallacy"? The basic form of it is "I don't understand something, therefore it probably isn't true.". However, is it always fallacious? Or is it, much like the argument from authority, sometimes justified.

Take three examples:

1) I don't understand how airplanes work, therefore they probably don't work.
This is an obvious example of personal incredulity fallacy.

2) Bombs appear to contradict the second law of thermodynamics, which says that a body can't convert its internal energy into mechanical work. That's what bombs are supposed to do. They receive very little energy that triggers them, and they turn their own internal energy into loads of mechanical work. Therefore, bombs probably don't exist.
This is wrong, but is it personal incredulity fallacy? When I was saying that, I thought it wasn't because "bombs contradict the second law of thermodynamics" is an objective claim, it doesn't talk about my mind but about external world.

3) I am studying computer science, and I don't understand how there could be antivirus software that's both effective against malware and doesn't have a huge number of dangerous false positives. System-critical software behaves very similar to rootkits, compilers behave rather similar to viruses and encryption tools behave similarly to ransomware. And from personal experience, once Microsoft Defender incorrectly identified my compiler as a virus. Therefore, the antivirus software probably can't work well and any real antivirus software will do more harm than good.
Is this type of reasoning also personal incredulity fallacy? I'd argue it's not, for the same reason appeal to the scientific consensus isn't the appear to authority fallacy.

[Jebus]

Let me predict how this thread will develop.

Someone will reply to Theo.
Theo will disagree.
Someone will explain to Theo the shortcomings of his arguments.
Theo will disagee without offering any valid counterarguments.
Someone will be annoyed with Theo for not debating in good faith.
Theo will change the subject and discuss Latin, Croatian topography, or something else that no one on this forum gives a shit about.
Someone will point out that Theo is off topic.
Theo will post a link to his videos.
Someone will be annoyed and check out of the discussion.

Theo will be back in a few days with a new topic completely unrelated to veganism and the whole thing will repeat itself again.

[Red]

Let me predict how this thread will develop.

Someone will reply to Theo.
Theo will disagree.
Someone will explain to Theo the shortcomings of his arguments.
Theo will disagee without offering any valid counterarguments.
Someone will be annoyed with Theo for not debating in good faith.
Theo will change the subject and discuss Latin, Croatian topography, or something else that no one on this forum gives a shit about.
Someone will point out that Theo is off topic.
Theo will post a link to his videos.
Someone will be annoyed and check out of the discussion.

Theo will be back in a few days with a new topic completely unrelated to veganism and the whole thing will repeat itself again.

It's just insane how he refuses to learn, and worse yet, digs himself into deeper crazy beliefs. A part of me isn't convinced he actually changed his mind on the shape of the Earth. If he responds to my script I posted I'm just going to make an effort to ignore him, since that thread'll develop in the way you're predicting here.

Anyway, as to Teo's question, it's just a matter of knowing your limitations and being able to fathom that there are things you don't understand, but other people DO understand. One year of Computer Science University education isn't enough to understand Computer Science enough to assume you know computer science. Until you graduate just defer to the experts.

[teo123]

It's just insane how he refuses to learn, and worse yet, digs himself into deeper crazy beliefs.

The most scientific ideas are those that are most falsifiable, regardless of how "crazy" (a rather vague term) are. The hypothesis that bombs contradict the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a very falsifiable hypothesis, it can be falsified by both a proof that bombs exist and a reasonable explanation of how they might not contradict the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It might seem crazy, but that's not a valid reason to reject it, any more than quantum mechanics sounding crazy to many people is a reason to reject quantum mechanics.

Anyway, as to Teo's question, it's just a matter of knowing your limitations and being able to fathom that there are things you don't understand, but other people DO understand.

I am not sure what you mean. What I am basically asking is what is the fundamental difference between saying "Perpetual motion machines appear to contradict the first law of thermodynamics, therefore they probably don't exist." and "Bombs appear to contradict the Second Law of Thermodynamics, therefore they probably don't exist."? Why is one wrong and one right? Or are perhaps both of them wrong. Is saying "The perpetual motion machines are impossible due to the first law of thermodynamics." perhaps the same as saying "I fail to see how to reconcile the existence of perpetual motion machines with the way I understand the first law of thermodynamics."?

Until you graduate just defer to the experts.

Why do you value academia so much? While the pseudointelectualism on the Internet can get rather toxic, academia can also get rather toxic. An obvious example of that is gender studies. But I am quite sure such toxic things exist in other parts of academia.

[Red]

The most scientific ideas are those that are most falsifiable, regardless of how "crazy" (a rather vague term) are. The hypothesis that bombs contradict the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a very falsifiable hypothesis, it can be falsified by both a proof that bombs exist and a reasonable explanation of how they might not contradict the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It might seem crazy, but that's not a valid reason to reject it, any more than quantum mechanics sounding crazy to many people is a reason to reject quantum mechanics.

That's not why your beliefs are crazy, they're crazy because they are ludricous conspiracy theories. Saying that bombs don't exist implies that all the scientists, engineers, and other experts, many soldiers who've served in a war in the past few hundred years (and civilians in those wars), all the people who've taken videos and photos of bombs exploding, people who've been to shows with bombs, and many, many other groups of people are in on a conspiracy that bombs don't exist. Such a conspiracy would include me, and several other members on this forum.

And for prisons too, your new insane belief. That's even crazier, since not only would it be an ancient conspiracy, but asserts that all governments, independent social organizations, prison guards, prisoners, anyone who has visitited a prison, anyone who has worked in or constructed a prison, all video and photographic evidence, etc are all in on the conspiracy. You KNOW someone who's been to prison, which adds to the inanity AND insanity.

These things are beyond 9-11 or Flat Earth conspiracy theories in terms of crazy because the scope is several magnitudes larger. We have every right to reject ideas that seem 'crazy' because that would usually means it contradicts well-established theories and consensus in some backwards ass way. We have to be open minded, but not so open minded that our brains fall out; For instance, it'd be ridiculous to lend any creadance to creationism as the reason for the diversity of life on Earth, when Evolution already provides a more than sufficient explanation.

The belief that these things don't exist are crazy because they are blatant disregards of evidence that is right in front of your face. It'd be like insisting the red apple in front of you isn't actually an apple but rather a rainbow dolphin.

Here's a suggestion Teo; Next time you think you've come up with a major breakthrough, assume it's wrong, because it always is.

I am not sure what you mean. What I am basically asking is what is the fundamental difference between saying "Perpetual motion machines appear to contradict the first law of thermodynamics, therefore they probably don't exist." and "Bombs appear to contradict the Second Law of Thermodynamics, therefore they probably don't exist."? Why is one wrong and one right? Or are perhaps both of them wrong. Is saying "The perpetual motion machines are impossible due to the first law of thermodynamics." perhaps the same as saying "I fail to see how to reconcile the existence of perpetual motion machines with the way I understand the first law of thermodynamics."?

Dunning Kruger effect. Most people don't understand how gravity works, does that give them the right to forge their own conclusions? No. Similarly, since you know fuck all about thermodynamics, you shouldn't assume you're making a breakthrough and all the people who actually have studied the subject are just idiots. It's better to just say 'Hey, that doesn't seem right. What do the experts say about this?' You remind me of when creationists use the 2LOT to disprove evolution, as if no one in Biology ever considered it.

Why do you value academia so much?

Because those are the people who know what they're talking about.

While the pseudointelectualism on the Internet can get rather toxic, academia can also get rather toxic. An obvious example of that is gender studies. But I am quite sure such toxic things exist in other parts of academia.

Are you really comparing science to gender studies? That's so damn insulting.

[teo123]

Saying that bombs don't exist implies that all the scientists, engineers, and other experts, many soldiers who've served in a war in the past few hundred years (and civilians in those wars), all the people who've taken videos and photos of bombs exploding, people who've been to shows with bombs, and many, many other groups of people are in on a conspiracy that bombs don't exist.

And isn't that sort of kindergarten logic, or primary school logic? I mean, it's excusable to think that way if you know nothing about hard science. But if you have taken some science classes, you should at least try to apply the knowledge you gained there. Otherwise, you are using soft science to contradict a hard science. The claim that bombs contradict the 2LOT is a hard science claim, the claim that bombs not existing would require massive conspiracies is a soft science claim.

And for prisons too, your new insane belief.

Well, it's certainly less insane than the belief that factory farms where animals are preventively given antibiotics don't exist. Both are believed for about the same reason: the basic principle of social sciences being that the society as a whole behaves as if everybody was rational, since irrationality of individuals cancels each other out, and factory farms and prisons appear to contradict that principle. Now, the factory farms can be shoehorned into being compatible with social science by saying that some farmers being short-sighted and feeding animals with antibiotics affects us way more than some farmers refusing to use antibiotics even when they are necessary (the same way you can explain terrorist attacks), or that more farmers are likely to be irrational and act in a way that causes antibiotic resistance than the other way around because it gives them short-term profits (though I am not sure that makes sense). But prisons, as far as I can see, can't be shoehorned into being compatible with the basic principle of social sciences.

Here's a suggestion Teo; Next time you think you've come up with a major breakthrough, assume it's wrong, because it always is.

Usually, it is. But sometimes it isn't. And if everyone were thinking that way, the civilization wouldn't advance.

You remind me of when creationists use the 2LOT to disprove evolution, as if no one in Biology ever considered it.

I don't think that's the right analogy. Creationists claim the 2LOT says that order can never arrive from chaos. That's obviously a shoddy formulation ("order" and "chaos" aren't well-defined terms), if not completely wrong (if it were true, it would make snowflakes impossible, because snowflakes are an obvious example of an order arising from chaos). "No body can turn its own internal energy into mechanical work." sounds plausible as a law of physics, not only that, that's the formulation from an actual physics textbook.

Because those are the people who know what they're talking about.

Not always. I am quite sure some of my professors don't know what they are talking about when talking about programming.

Are you really comparing science to gender studies?

I am not, I am simply saying academia can sometimes be pseudointelectual. Some gender studies are an obvious example. Language teaching at the university can also be an example of that. Learning a language at the university is perhaps the most backward way of learning a language. Like, some people learn Chinese at the university. That is, they learn something other people learn at the same time as they learn walking at the university. Sounds like a giant waste of time. And if you actually want to learn Chinese, you would learn it a lot better and in a lot more fun way if you spent that time somewhere in China rather than at the university. I also think programming is being taught in a very backwards way, at least for the vast majority of purposes. Academizing in programming perhaps has some time and place, like perhaps when programming medical devices or for airplanes (when it's important to be able to academically prove that your program will behave as expected in unexpected situations). For almost all other types of programming, programming skills taught at the university are worse than useless.

[Red]

And isn't that sort of kindergarten logic, or primary school logic?

Teo, just shut up. You can try coming up with any inane reason to justify your idiotic way of thinking, it won't change the fact that it's insane.

I mean, it's excusable to think that way if you know nothing about hard science.

Don't act like you do. Quit projecting.

But if you have taken some science classes, you should at least try to apply the knowledge you gained there.

'Apply' does not mean 'assume you know enough to draw your own conclusions.'

Otherwise, you are using soft science to contradict a hard science. The claim that bombs contradict the 2LOT is a hard science claim, the claim that bombs not existing would require massive conspiracies is a soft science claim.

No, it's not a hard science belief, it's a pseudoscientific belief. Whether or not the science is hard is irrelevant towards the level of insanity in your claims.

And once again, you're talking straight out of your ass when you're talking about soft sciences. You still don't know what that is, and you're twisting the definition to justify ways of thinking that can't be justified. You also clearly don't understand what a conspiracy theory is, nor how they just collapse in on themselves as the scope ioncreases.

Well, it's certainly less insane than the belief that factory farms where animals are preventively given antibiotics don't exist.

That wouldn't require as large of a conspiracy (and it still is irrelevant towards where it's correct or not).

Both are believed for about the same reason: the basic principle of social sciences being that the society as a whole behaves as if everybody was rational, since irrationality of individuals cancels each other out, and factory farms and prisons appear to contradict that principle.

You obviously misunderstood wherever you heard that from, as you do with everything.

Now, the factory farms can be shoehorned into being compatible with social science by saying that some farmers being short-sighted and feeding animals with antibiotics affects us way more than some farmers refusing to use antibiotics even when they are necessary (the same way you can explain terrorist attacks), or that more farmers are likely to be irrational and act in a way that causes antibiotic resistance than the other way around because it gives them short-term profits (though I am not sure that makes sense). But prisons, as far as I can see, can't be shoehorned into being compatible with the basic principle of social sciences.

Again, you're talking out your ass.

Usually, it is. But sometimes it isn't. And if everyone were thinking that way, the civilization wouldn't advance.

No, I meant you, since you are incapable to actually think of anything groundbreaking.

I don't think that's the right analogy. Creationists claim the 2LOT says that order can never arrive from chaos. That's obviously a shoddy formulation ("order" and "chaos" aren't well-defined terms), if not completely wrong (if it were true, it would make snowflakes impossible, because snowflakes are an obvious example of an order arising from chaos). "No body can turn its own internal energy into mechanical work." sounds plausible as a law of physics, not only that, that's the formulation from an actual physics textbook.

No, it's a good ananolgy since both arguments arise from a misunderstanding of the science, and also is under the assertion that professionals haven't even considered it. But no, the kid from some insignificant corner of the Balkans who has shit for science education is able overturn entire ways of thinking.

Because those are the people who know what they're talking about.

Not always. I am quite sure some of my professors don't know what they are talking about when talking about programming.

I'm pretty sure the professors know more about the subject than a student. You're falling for the Dunning Kruger effect yet again.

I am not, I am simply saying academia can sometimes be pseudointelectual. Some gender studies are an obvious example. Language teaching at the university can also be an example of that. Learning a language at the university is perhaps the most backward way of learning a language. Like, some people learn Chinese at the university. That is, they learn something other people learn at the same time as they learn walking at the university. Sounds like a giant waste of time. And if you actually want to learn Chinese, you would learn it a lot better and in a lot more fun way if you spent that time somewhere in China rather than at the university. I also think programming is being taught in a very backwards way, at least for the vast majority of purposes. Academizing in programming perhaps has some time and place, like perhaps when programming medical devices or for airplanes (when it's important to be able to academically prove that your program will behave as expected in unexpected situations). For almost all other types of programming, programming skills taught at the university are worse than useless.

STEM is not one of them (and I'm still skeptical as to a lot to what you're saying here).

Just stop Teo. No one here thinks you're smart or profound, everyone here (including lurkers) thinks you're a moron and/or lunatic and are all laughing at you or are feeling sorry for you. Also when you write these walls of texts, all it does is waste more time and derail the thread further, not make it look like you know what you're talking about. I'm not responding after this. Next time you get into a thread, don't derail it.

[Red]

@teo123 I deleted your post since you have an awesome habit of derailing threads, and you're just making the same idiotic assertions you do in so many other threads. You've been told WHY you are wrong on each of these things in several threads, yet you refuse to learn because you can't seem to fathom the possibility that you can be wrong. The only thing I've seen you really changed your mind on is Flat Earth, but the way of thinking that led you to that hasn't changed. You're still the same arrogant and ignorant person you always were. I like to think that when you get older you'll realize how stupid you were as a kid.

The people who think you're 'smart' obviously aren't aware of your batshit crazy views. I can guarantee that if they are to learn about these crazy views of yours, any positive thoughts about you in regards to your intelligence will vanish. When you were discussing with Sunflowers, it just showed you knew more about Quantum Mechanics than him, who knew even less than you do. The thread did show me to not get my hopes up that you're learning when you say something intelligent, since you're wrong almost 100% of the time.

[teo123]

you can't seem to fathom the possibility that you can be wrong

I can. I just find it very unlikely that I am wrong about how social sciences work. If you say I am mistaken about how physics works, you may be right (your guess about how physics works is about as good as mine is). But, when it comes to social sciences, I've published papers in peer-reviewed journals about them. And if you say I am mistaken about how they work (as you are saying), you are far more likely to be wrong than I am.

the way of thinking that led you to that hasn't changed.

What I got wrong when it comes to Flat Earth is that I didn't ask myself the second question of critical thinking, namely, what experts think (the first one being whether it makes sense to me). In case of the shape of the Earth, it's obvious what the experts think (even though the reason they think that might not be obvious). But when it comes to anarchism, who are the experts? And how can you know what most of them think? You can't apply the second question of critical thinking to most things.

[Red]

-