HANS WORMHAT & THE ARGUMENT FROM PERSONAL INCREDULITY
Today I was listening to John LeBon discuss Han’s Wormhat’s theory that Toucan’s don’t exist is based on nothing more than personal feelings. He feels incredulous and posits his doubts as evidence for his contention these birds don’t exist. More specifically, the beaks are fake.
The evidence in favor of Toucan beaks being real is well established and easily re-searchable to an unbiased researcher as I am. Moreover, his counter-evidence consists of personal opinions about personal incredulity.
Now those beaks ARE remarkable. However, it doesn’t mean they are fake just because they are unbelievable. So the error in Hans Wormhat’s (his real name) approach is that he mistakes his question for an argument.
“Reasons” for calling it a hoax:
- beaks are different from baby to adult
- “It doesn’t make sense to me”–JLB, “Yeah, it doesn’t” Hans
- Sloths “don’t make sense in nature” so they don’t exist– Hans
What the Toucan-Hoax -Theory amounts to is an ARGUMENT FROM INCREDULITY.
HANS WORMHAT’s are based, not on EVIDENCE, but evidence-denialism based on personal incredulity.
Logical fallacies = lies in my book. So is he lying on purpose or unintentionally through a lapse in logic?
* IS THIS LOGICAL FALLACY BASED APPROACH TO DISCREDIT REAL RESEARCHERS VIA BLACKWASH AND GUILT BY ASSOCIATION?
It doesn’t mean he’s an agent. He might just be dishonest in so far as logical fallacies may be considered lies. You aren’t a “truther” if all your “research” is based on logically fallacious arguments.
Also, according to the formal rules of logic, the burden of proof has been established pro-Toucan, so it’s not on me to show evidence for their existence, but I did link below to a Toucan Timeline birth to adulthood below…