Obviously 'difficulty of acceptance' (DOA) is too subjective a criterion to be a basis for determining the validity of any idea, but we do see this come up repeatedly.
DOA can be a function of one's actual knowledge
or one's preconceived beliefs arising from dogma.
I have difficulty accepting religions because none are based on any factual evidence. However, I would not argue that religions cannot be true because I find them difficult to believe, but rather that they are unworthy of contemplation without a means of testing their veracity.
Creos have difficulty accepting evolution because they believe it conflicts with dogma they have already decided is true. Their preconceptions are a critical component of their 'difficulty of acceptance', but lacking a good evidence base, they more often cite DOA as a reason for evolution not likely being correct than someone who's beliefs are evidence-based.
So I am thinking yes, fallacial reasoning it must be, because 'correct' or 'incorrect' can only be determined on the basis of objective evidence. 'Difficulty of acceptance' is very subjective and too often merely a function of either someone's failure to grasp an intellectual concept, or their intrinsic resistance to an idea.
Maybe we could call it "the fallacy of unwarranted incredulity".
This message has been edited by EZscience, 05-10-2006 01:37 PM