I heard that term on the radio today. It is a new one to me. A science author was discussing how some ideas are refuted in debate by using the incredulous argument, "argumentum ad incredulum", which seems to mean that if something is difficult to understand and I don't understand it then it must not be true.
A web search on the term uncovers some references to mathematics and to evolution. No doubt it can be extended to foetal heart surgery and continental drift.
Here is one example to illustrate the meaning of the term:
"Like, I believe you or anyone else cam look at a bunch of rocks, old bones, and burnt out gunk in a test tube, and go, hey, I know how life began! You're more delusional than you think I am .. "
And here is another:
"I just can't believe it! I know nothing about the subject, have never studied science, but I feel that I can decide on the basis of my prejudices that it's quite impossible!"
A Nobel Prize winning biochemist writes a book explaining how it is not only possible but probable, but you George, out of the depths of your ignorance, can tell at a glance he's wrong! Without even reading the book!"
On the other hand there are plenty of quacks out there who study, write books, and arrive at some incredulous conclusions, so incredulous that further investigation is not needed and perhaps Argumentum ad Incredulum is a decent enough treatment of the matter. One example is the 35 million year old aliens that inhabited our planet according to L.Ron Hubbard. Another is freckle counting to prove reincarnation.
Just because a theory sounds incredulous doesn't mean it isn't.
within which we chose to lean toward one side or the other of any argument. The framework decides the outcome of any observation. That’s why those in power better set up their framework properly that at the end of "our decision" making process they end up with one of two choices they decided for us.
It is perfectly explained by Professor Chomsky:
In 1921, the famous American journalist Walter Lippmann said that the art of democracy requires what he called the "manufacture of consent." This phrase is an Orwellian euphemism for thought control. The idea is that in a state such as the U.S. where the government can't control the people by force, it had better control what they think. The Soviet Union is at the opposite end of the spectrum from us in its domestic freedoms. It's essentially a country run by the bludgeon. It's very easy to determine what propaganda is in the USSR: what the state produces is propaganda.
In totalitarian societies where there's a Ministry of Truth, propaganda doesn't really try to control your thoughts. It just gives you the party line. It says, "Here's the official doctrine; don't disobey and you won't get in trouble. What you think is not of great importance to anyone. If you get out of line we'll do something to you because we have force." Democratic societies can't work like that, because the state is much more limited in its capacity to control behavior by force. Since the voice of the people is allowed to speak out, those in power better control what that voice says--in other words, control what people think. One of the ways to do this is to create political debate that appears to embrace many opinions, but actually stays within very narrow margins. You have to make sure that both sides in the debate accept certain assumptions--and that those assumptions are the basis of the propaganda system. As long as everyone accepts the propaganda system, the debate is permissible.
Brain
Ronald Reagan: Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.
---Al