What logical fallacy would the following example fall under?

Question

The year is 1930. Alice has just read H. G. Wells' "The World Set Free" and is greatly troubled by the prospect of nuclear weapons. When she talks to Bob about it, Bob scoffs at the notion, saying nuclear weapons can only every exist in the realm of fiction. After all, Bob says, if the nuclear weapon could be created it would grant the first country to make one immense power over its neighbors. However, no country has yet to create one, or even start a nuclear weapons program, in spite of Well's book being published back in 1914. Bob finishes by stating that because no country has nuclear weapons, the nuclear weapon cannot exist in the real world.

Update:

@mark h I thought of that, but to me Bob's lack of belief in the bomb is not his "proof". His "proof" is that no country has made a nuclear weapon in spite of the fact that it would be advantageous to do so. I guess it's like "Because no one has done it before, it cannot happen" but I don't know if that would fall under personal incredulity or some other fallacy.

mark h · Accepted Answer

Argument from personal incredulity.

ie, if I cannot imagine a possible true outcome therefore it is not possible for it to be true.

It fell apart for me at the point where is stated that the first country would have immense power over its neighbors.  That is true enough on its own but the context designs an implication that somehow prevents the design of the weapon.

History shows no such limitation, so this is a lack of imagination leading to a false conclusion.

Hope that helps.

Anonymous · Answer

I would say the biggest logical fallacy is that you think people care about this.

Trending News

What logical fallacy would the following example fall under?

2 Answers