Personal Incredulity

Fallacy Summary: Reject a claim because it is hard to imagine.

Lack of understanding or imagination substitutes for evidence, so complex ideas are dismissed outright. Research context: Informal-logic and argumentation research treats fallacies as structural problems in reasoning. A conclusion can sound persuasive while still being weak if the link between premises, evidence, and conclusion is not valid. Pattern-specific focus: Reject a claim because it is hard to imagine. Practical review method: separate factual claims from interpretation, check source quality, and test whether the conclusion survives alternative explanations.

example of personal incredulity
“ultimately forgiven under the Biden administration. “It strains credulity to think SBA’s General Counsel Peggy Hamilton was doing anything other than hiding her Planned Parenthood records from Congressional and public scrutiny and oversight,” Ernst wrote. “That’s not something she is allowed”
Analysis explanation

Questions connection to imply absurdity without evidence. Dismisses alternative explanations as implausible.

How to recognize personal incredulity yourself

  • A rhetorical move replaces proof (for example, popularity, authority, or insult).
  • Causation is claimed without ruling out alternatives or coincidence.
  • The argument is reduced to an artificial either/or choice.
  • Emotion is used to drive agreement where evidence should carry the burden.

Verification questions

  • Which premise is doing the critical work, and is it actually supported?
  • Does the conclusion logically follow, or does rhetoric bridge the gap?
  • What alternative explanation would still fit the observed facts?

Failed to load people summary; Failed to load publications summary; Failed to load article summary

No cohort chart data available.

High offenders

Authors

No offenders available.

Publications

No offenders available.