- Joined
- May 6, 2016
- Messages
- 1,908
- Reaction score
- 489
- Location
- Colorado
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Argument from incredulity is when you reject a belief (or accept one) because you cannot imagine an alternative. The problem should be obvious, the truth is not contingent on your ability to comprehend them.
An example would be in June 26, 1947 with the Roswell crash. Let's say that you noticed something falling from the sky and decided to check it out but before you can get too close, you get taken into custody by the military and they ask you what you saw. After you tell them everything, they let you go but warn you not to tell anyone about what you saw or you'll get arrested. Two weeks later, you read the news of the Roswell army air field claiming that they noticed a flying disc only for it to be retracted and them claim that it was a weather balloon. That doesn't really make sense though. Why would the military make a big fuss if it was only a weather baloon? Interest renewed in the late 70s when people claimed that it was really an alien spaceship. At that moment, things start to make sense. Why else would they have reacted that way?
At this moment we need to look at prior probability which is the probability minus the incident in question. As far as I understand it, the probability that aliens are secretly associating with the government is fairly low. If aliens have the technology for interstellar travel, they probably have very little interest in secretly collaborating with governments if our tech level. Furthermore, we have never detected any extraterrestrial life. That isn't to say that extraterrestrial life doesn't exist but is rather uncommon enough as to not be everywhere. Bear in mind that the burden of proof rests on the one who makes the claim. As Carl Sagan put it, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".
Eventually, the Freedom of Information Act gets passed and we find out that it was a spy balloon to see if the Soviet Union was doing high altitude tests of nuclear weapons. At that moment, you may decide that it was another coverup story. But here's the question: how did you know that the original story was a coverup in the first place? The answer is because the explanation couldn't explain why the military threatened you if you talked. But if it was a spy balloon, that probably would have been a good explanation. The problem that this hypothetical you has is that he thinks about what the government would be doing if the Roswell incident were really aliens. However, he has completely cast aside the whole reason for believing that it was aliens in the first place. You couldn't think of another explanation, so when someone suggested that it was aliens, you believed that it was aliens.
End of Part 1
An example would be in June 26, 1947 with the Roswell crash. Let's say that you noticed something falling from the sky and decided to check it out but before you can get too close, you get taken into custody by the military and they ask you what you saw. After you tell them everything, they let you go but warn you not to tell anyone about what you saw or you'll get arrested. Two weeks later, you read the news of the Roswell army air field claiming that they noticed a flying disc only for it to be retracted and them claim that it was a weather balloon. That doesn't really make sense though. Why would the military make a big fuss if it was only a weather baloon? Interest renewed in the late 70s when people claimed that it was really an alien spaceship. At that moment, things start to make sense. Why else would they have reacted that way?
At this moment we need to look at prior probability which is the probability minus the incident in question. As far as I understand it, the probability that aliens are secretly associating with the government is fairly low. If aliens have the technology for interstellar travel, they probably have very little interest in secretly collaborating with governments if our tech level. Furthermore, we have never detected any extraterrestrial life. That isn't to say that extraterrestrial life doesn't exist but is rather uncommon enough as to not be everywhere. Bear in mind that the burden of proof rests on the one who makes the claim. As Carl Sagan put it, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".
Eventually, the Freedom of Information Act gets passed and we find out that it was a spy balloon to see if the Soviet Union was doing high altitude tests of nuclear weapons. At that moment, you may decide that it was another coverup story. But here's the question: how did you know that the original story was a coverup in the first place? The answer is because the explanation couldn't explain why the military threatened you if you talked. But if it was a spy balloon, that probably would have been a good explanation. The problem that this hypothetical you has is that he thinks about what the government would be doing if the Roswell incident were really aliens. However, he has completely cast aside the whole reason for believing that it was aliens in the first place. You couldn't think of another explanation, so when someone suggested that it was aliens, you believed that it was aliens.
End of Part 1