What is exactly "personal incredulity fallacy"?

[Red]

So, you think "Vladimir" is the Russian president's real name?

Having read your arguments, I now don't think that Vladimir is his real name! Well done Teo, you've convinced me!

Finally that you admit it can sometimes happen that I am right and you are wrong. Be it only in a field I have published peer-reviewed papers about, and you know next to nothing about that.

You're so right Teo!!!! In fact your way of thinking has led me to this!
viewtopic.php?f=17&t=7238&p=48509#p48509

[PhilRisk]

Well, we can't know how stuff really are, only how they appear.

There is an apparent connection to:

"bombs contradict the second law of thermodynamics" is an objective claim

Do you see the connection, why this can be a personal incredulity fallacy?

[teo123]

Well, we can't know how stuff really are, only how they appear.

There is an apparent connection to:

"bombs contradict the second law of thermodynamics" is an objective claim

Do you see the connection, why this can be a personal incredulity fallacy?

Do you think there is a difference between saying "Perpetual motion machines appear to contradict the first law of thermodynamics." and "Perpetual motion machines contradict the first law of thermodynamics."?

[PhilRisk]

Do you think there is a difference between saying "Perpetual motion machines appear to contradict the first law of thermodynamics." and "Perpetual motion machines contradict the first law of thermodynamics."?

Before I answer your question, please answer mine:

Do you see the connection, and hence, why the utterance of ""bombs contradict the second law of thermodynamics" can be a personal incredulity fallacy?

[teo123]

Do you think there is a difference between saying "Perpetual motion machines appear to contradict the first law of thermodynamics." and "Perpetual motion machines contradict the first law of thermodynamics."?

Before I answer your question, please answer mine:

Do you see the connection, and hence, why the utterance of ""bombs contradict the second law of thermodynamics" can be a personal incredulity fallacy?

Well, yes, I can see how it can be a personal incredulity fallacy assuming there is some difference in meaning between those two statements.

[PhilRisk]

Do you think there is a difference between saying "Perpetual motion machines appear to contradict the first law of thermodynamics." and "Perpetual motion machines contradict the first law of thermodynamics."?

Before I answer your question, please answer mine:

Do you see the connection, and hence, why the utterance of ""bombs contradict the second law of thermodynamics" can be a personal incredulity fallacy?

Well, yes, I can see how it can be a personal incredulity fallacy assuming there is some difference in meaning between those two statements.

You do not need to assume a different in meaning (even though most there is one). If I say "Perpetual motion machines appear to contradict the first law of thermodynamics." I would acknowledge, that it appears to me. If I say "Perpetual motion machines contradicts the first law of thermodynamics." I do not say anything about appearance. Therefore, there is a difference in meaning, even though it might be trivial as every statement is based on appearance.

However, the question whether it can be personal incredulity does not depend on that difference. If someone states "Perpetual motion machines contradicts the first law of thermodynamics." it could still be his personal incredulity, why he is stating it.

In your first post in this topic you stated something about objective statements not being able to be based on incredulity. Later you said, the difference would not matter as every statement can only be only based on appearance, hence no statement is objective.

[FredVegrox]

If we mean by perpetual motion machines such contructions made or possible to be made by human people, then those are contradicting thermodynamic laws. Yet, thermodynamics have such things that run perpetual motion. All atoms are that way. But to get useful energy from them you need a huge amount of atoms with much further complexity, and the possibility of perpetual motion is lost with such greater complexity, and energy flows from higher to lower concentration, while entropy increases. Our own energy with useful materials is put into things for having stored energy to release.

[FredVegrox]

Bombs do not really release all internal energy, but a significant portion of it, especially if they produce a nuclear explosion. That still is not all of the internal energy.

[teo123]

Bombs do not really release all internal energy, but a significant portion of it, especially if they produce a nuclear explosion. That still is not all of the internal energy.

The problem with my argument is that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics actually says no such thing. Here is @brimstoneSalad explaining what the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics actually says: viewtopic.php?p=47111#p47111

[brimstoneSalad]

Yet, thermodynamics have such things that run perpetual motion. All atoms are that way. But to get useful energy from them you need a huge amount of atoms with much further complexity, and the possibility of perpetual motion is lost with such greater complexity

Atoms aren't in perpetual motion.
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/a ... es.243906/

They bounce around off each other and lose thermal energy to the surroundings. A perfect insulator to contain that energy indefinitely is thermodynamically impossible. The only reason they continue to move and don't reach absolute zero is because energy is coming in externally from the surroundings.

An unbounded atom in space will drift until it loses enough energy and is eventually sucked into a black hole, in theory. Black holes are an interesting question. Do they spin indefinitely, or do they decay due to hawking radiation (which we have as far as I know never detected with certainty)? I know the theory, but I don't have a take on it (a rare phenomenon).