Just because to me it is mind-blowing does not mean I am incredulous to it.
That is literally what it
means:
the
feeling of not
wanting or not being
able to
believe something
Incorrect. I have not seen any dictionary definitions for the term "mind-blowing" that match your definition. The Cambridge dictionary defines the term "mind-blowing" to mean "surprising, shocking, and often difficult to understand or imagine". Merriam-Webster defines the term as "mentally or emotionally exciting or overwhelming". Both of these definitions fit the context in which I used that term in my post. The definition that you proffer, however, does not.
I stated:
Many people, including me, accept as fact the following:
1. Quantum entanglement
2. Observation collapses the wave function
... they seem outlandish... To me, this is mind blowing.
(
Emphasis added).
1. The first form of incredulity that was presented is as follows: "I cannot imagine how F could be true; therefore F must be false."
Clearly, I stated that I "accept as fact" those well known aspects of quantum mechanics. It is in my very first sentence. The term "fact" means "something that has actual existence"; "an actual occurrence"; "the quality of being actual". Accordingly, I did not claim that those aspects of quantum mechanics must be false, but instead stated quite the opposite. Thus, the first provided form of incredulity does not support the allegation.
I did state that they "seem outlandish", but "seem" means to appear or give an impression; it does not mean an actual state of being. Accordingly, use of the term "seem", especially in context with my statement that I "accept as fact", does not support an argument that the aspects of quantum mechanics I discussed are asserted to be false. If I were asserting that they were false, I would not have stated that I "accept" them "as fact".
2. The second form of incredulity that was presented is as follows: "I cannot imagine how F could be false; therefore F must be true."
Yes, I did assert that those well known aspects of quantum mechanics are true (as do most quantum physicists, at least the ones I am familiar with), but nowhere did I infer that I could not imagine how they could be false. Indeed, I stated that they are "backed up by scientific experiments". Thus, the second form of incredulity does not support the allegation.
You cite a passage "Arguments from incredulity can sometimes arise from..." An argument that fits the form of an incredulous argument may arise as described. But, if an argument does not fit the form of an incredulous argument, how the argument arose does not automatically change it into being an incredulous argument.
look at this mind blowing thing a, that we don’t fully understand.
Prominent Physicist and Nobel laureate Richard Feynman stated “I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.” It is well known that we do not understand how observation collapses the wave function, nor how the collapse of the wave function of one particle collapses the wave function of another particle with which it is entangled. If you understand, please share your understanding. If it is correct, you could be in line to win a Nobel prize in physics.
This is exactly spot on what you argued for: look at this mind blowing thing a, that we don’t fully understand. If this exists, then why not b, c and d as well? It’s also similar to a
faulty generalization. It is the “keep an open mind part” that I’m objecting to. It’s fallacious and a very bad reason to keep an open mind. In fact, when you know little about something, you have to be extra critical.
I stated: "This universe is strange, and there are many things that we humans cannot wrap our heads around. That is why I keep an open mind." This is not similar to a faulty generalization. "A
faulty generalization is an informal fallacy wherein a conclusion is drawn about all or many instances of a phenomenon on the basis of one or a few instances of that phenomenon." I have not drawn conclusions "about all or many instances of a phenomenon". In this regard, the only conclusions I have drawn pertain to UAP phenomena which, to me, clearly look to have mundane explanations. With regard to UAP phenomena that I cannot explain, I have not drawn any conclusions other than I am curious, I don't know, and I reserve judgement until I learn more (i.e., keep an open mind). This is not fallacious whatsoever.
What is fallacious is to keep a closed mind, automatically discounting the testimony of numerous highly credentialed individuals just because what they assert is contrary to one's personal beliefs. Moreover, it is a fallacy to conclude that absence of evidence means evidence of absence.
EDIT 2: Removed potentially offensive statements.
FURTHER EDITS MADE.
allthatsinteresting.com
www.twz.com
