|
|
Post by Gibson on Nov 7, 2022 6:22:52 GMT
I have had the same conversation with Nessie about ten times, so I figured I would collect some general comments that I can point him to in the future. "Nessie's Board" seems like the best place to put this. 1. Historical Inference Inference - a conclusion reached on the basis of evidence and reasoningThis is my single biggest disagreement with Nessie. From what I can tell, Nessie completely rejects the concept of inference. He says drawing a conclusion is a "fallacy" and claims that no inference is ever needed, i.e., that conclusions should follow automatically and invariably from "the evidence." He simply asserts "X is evidenced," therefore X is true, and that conclusively settles the matter. In reality, evidence has to be assessed and people don't always reach the same conclusions because they have different assumptions and experience, etc. This is such a trivial point I feel silly even making it. Nessie is the only person I've ever encountered who doesn't intuitively understand this. 1a. Fallacy of IncredulityNessie labels any "conclusion reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning" that he disagrees with to be a fallacy of "personal" incredulity. If someone says "I don't buy X because ..." and then gives reasons why X is implausible, this is not a fallacy. Nor is there anything "fallacious" about prefacing your remarks with "I think," "I believe," "it seems," etc. Nessie has no concept of likelihood or probability at all, focusing instead of possibility/impossibility. Even criminal court cases which have a high standard of proof are implicitly probabilistic as the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt." Although he doesn't admit it, Nessie draws inferences based on his own judgment, just like everyone else. Revisionists do the same. But Nessie bizarrely pretends like his views are a pure distillation of evidence with no "personal" judgment involved. This is absurd. Just give your evidence and analysis and try to convince people you are right. 2. Implication and Commensurate Evidence"The Holocaust" is a bundle of things, some of which are historical and some of which dubious. The most extraordinary elements of it are precisely those that are based on the weakest evidence. If you claim millions killed in gas chambers, you need evidence of those gas chambers. Not people with tattoos. Not an Arbeit Macht Frei sign. Not pictures of ovens. Hence the importance of logical implication. If A, therefore B. Someone with a tattoo on their arm does not imply gas chambers. An Arbeit Macht Frei sign does not imply gas chambers. A tattoo and a sign together do not "converge" and imply gas chambers. If you have a witness who says there were gas chambers, that can be included as evidence but on its own it isn't convincing. The evidence also needs to be commensurate with what is alleged. Postwar statements are a very shaky basis for concluding that millions of people were killed. Usually something on the scale of the Holocaust would not need to rely heavily on that sort of evidence. Usually they are acknowledged in real time. Nessie will assert "overwhelming evidence" but he does not have much interest in discussing any of it in detail or making a strong, direct argument that compels us to say "therefore gas chambers," "therefore six million." 3. The Danger of Argument by EliminationAn argument by elimination is where you list out all the possibilities and then rule them out one by one. Whatever possibility is left is assumed to be true. Either A or B Not B Therefore A Logically, this is a perfectly valid form of argument if you assume A and B are the only possibilities and you can in fact rule out B. However, these arguments are dangerous in practice because if the complete possibilities are messy and uncertain or if we cannot truly rule out a possibility completely then it is flawed. It is a very common rhetorical tactic precisely because people can't make their case directly and find it easier to present possibilities and strawman the ones they want to reject. Applying this to the holocaust debate, you end up with something like the following. Either A) Millions of Jews were executed OR B) Anything else Not B (i.e., anything else is impossible) Therefore A The only reason to make this more convoluted argument is because attempts to prove A directly run into the problems discussed in #2 (tattoos but no gas chambers). The Nessie version is usually expressed slightly differently. -A "is evidenced" (but please don't ask for details) -B "is not evidenced" (where B = "resettlement") -Therefore A If Nessie is challenged on A, he says he doesn't care if the testimonies make sense, doesn't care about contradictions, etc. But I think if someone has major doubts about A, you will never convince them with this sort of argument by elimination. You will need to discuss the actual evidence in depth. Repeating the same generic arguments over and over and handwaving the details is a waste of time.
|
|
|
|
Post by ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐๐ด๐ป๐ธ on Nov 7, 2022 6:42:22 GMT
Thank you for this commentary "Mel", it is all correct. The reality is Nessie is a low hanging fruit loop, easy pickings. We look forward to your future contributions on many topics, not just the alleged Holocaust.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,207 
|
Post by Nessie on Nov 7, 2022 8:56:53 GMT
I use the methodology I was taught in history lessons at school, then at university and the police. Gather the evidence from witnesses, documents, images, archaeology, forensics, physical items and circumstances. I look for motives, preparation, opportunity, ability and conduct after the crime.
I then assess the evidence, for example, is the witness evidence eyewitness or hearsay? What does the document actually say, or the image actually show? What has the archaeologist found? I look for consistencies and contradictions. I also look at what is not evidenced.
Once that is done, I look for what is corroborated and how the evidence is logically and chronologically pieced together.
From that, I reach a conclusion as to what is proved to have happened.
In trying to explain that simple, widely used methodology, I have clearly confused Gibson, who appears to have never had a history lesson, even at school.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,207
|
Post by Nessie on Nov 7, 2022 13:15:31 GMT
I have had the same conversation with Nessie about ten times, so I figured I would collect some general comments that I can point him to in the future. "Nessie's Board" seems like the best place to put this. 1. Historical Inference Inference - a conclusion reached on the basis of evidence and reasoningThis is my single biggest disagreement with Nessie. From what I can tell, Nessie completely rejects the concept of inference. He says drawing a conclusion is a "fallacy" and claims that no inference is ever needed, i.e., that conclusions should follow automatically and invariably from "the evidence." He simply asserts "X is evidenced," therefore X is true, and that conclusively settles the matter. In reality, evidence has to be assessed and people don't always reach the same conclusions because they have different assumptions and experience, etc. This is such a trivial point I feel silly even making it. Nessie is the only person I've ever encountered who doesn't intuitively understand this. .... I have got more time to answer this in detail. I use inference, defined as a "conclusion reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning". I tend to use the phrase to logically conclude from the evidence. I look at all the evidence and then logically infer the conclusion. Nowhere have I said drawing a conclusion is a fallacy, you have made that up due to your misunderstanding. You have made various claims, but you have not linked to or quoted me to example what you are claiming. I do assert that if event X is evidenced to have happened, then it is true. That is logical. Of course that evidence has to be assessed first, but once the evidence is assessed and there is sufficient corroborating evidence to prove an event took place, then that event took place. People may reach different conclusions, especially when the evidence is ambiguous. But, to use an actual example, mass gassings inside the AR camps is evidenced to have happened. No other processing of people and regular mass transports back out of the AR camps is not evidenced. Logically, it makes more sense to believe what is evidenced to have happened, not what is not evidenced to have happened. When deniers try to reach a different conclusion from gassings, it is not based on a disagreement about the evidence, it is from no evidence. Deniers try to claim that there were no gassings is a conclusion and that by disputing the evidence for gassings, they have concluded no gassings. That fails because they cannot evidence what did happen. To successfully prove no gassings took place inside the AR camps, deniers have to evidence what did happen, or else there is no conclusion. Hundreds of thousands of people went to the AR camps, were not gassed and that is the end of the matter, when clearly it is not. There are vague suggestions they left the camps, but that is not accompanied by any evidence. Denial does not have a logical conclusion as to what happened at the end. It stops part of the way through the process. If deniers could evidence mass transports back out of the AR camps to other camps and that is where all those people were accommodated till they were liberated at the end of the war, there is now a conclusion. |
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,207
|
Post by Nessie on Nov 7, 2022 13:32:13 GMT
..... 1a. Fallacy of IncredulityNessie labels any "conclusion reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning" that he disagrees with to be a fallacy of "personal" incredulity. If someone says "I don't buy X because ..." and then gives reasons why X is implausible, this is not a fallacy. Nor is there anything "fallacious" about prefacing your remarks with "I think," "I believe," "it seems," etc. Nessie has no concept of likelihood or probability at all, focusing instead of possibility/impossibility. Even criminal court cases which have a high standard of proof are implicitly probabilistic as the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt." Although he doesn't admit it, Nessie draws inferences based on his own judgment, just like everyone else. Revisionists do the same. But Nessie bizarrely pretends like his views are a pure distillation of evidence with no "personal" judgment involved. This is absurd. Just give your evidence and analysis and try to convince people you are right. .... The denier use of the fallacy of incredulity is based on taking the emotive Jewish testimony very literally, whilst largely ignoring the more matter of fact Nazi testimony, and then claiming the way the Jews described how the graves were dug, the gas chambers functioned and the pyres were set, to be unbelievable, therefore the Jews lied and so did the Nazis. The reasons why deniers find X to be implausible, are not good reasons. If a witness states a grave was dug to a certain size and that appears to be implausible based on the way the witness describes it, that does not mean therefore the witness has lied, and no grave was dug. The only reliable method for determining if the witness is lying or not, is a physical examination of the ground. If a large area of that ground is disturbed ground, then that corroborates the witness and a grave was dug. The sizes may be out, but that does not matter, as witnesses are known to be poor at estimating size. By using the corroboration methodology, my personal judgment is not involved. I am not personally judging if a grave was dug. I am leaving it to the evidence to determine if a grave was dug. If the archaeologists report finding a large area of disturbed ground where the witness said the grave was dug, then the evidence does the judging, not me. The evidence from witnesses, documents, images, archaeology and circumstances has been tested in numerous courts, from the Nuremberg and later war crime trials in Germany, to other countries and even trials such as the denial trial in Canada of Leuchter and the libel trial of Irving in the UK. They have all concluded it is proved beyond all reasonable doubt. The evidence did that, not personal judgement. |
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,207
|
Post by Nessie on Nov 7, 2022 14:10:59 GMT
..... 2. Implication and Commensurate Evidence"The Holocaust" is a bundle of things, some of which are historical and some of which dubious. The most extraordinary elements of it are precisely those that are based on the weakest evidence. If you claim millions killed in gas chambers, you need evidence of those gas chambers. Not people with tattoos. Not an Arbeit Macht Frei sign. Not pictures of ovens. Hence the importance of logical implication. If A, therefore B. Someone with a tattoo on their arm does not imply gas chambers. An Arbeit Macht Frei sign does not imply gas chambers. A tattoo and a sign together do not "converge" and imply gas chambers. If you have a witness who says there were gas chambers, that can be included as evidence but on its own it isn't convincing. The evidence also needs to be commensurate with what is alleged. Postwar statements are a very shaky basis for concluding that millions of people were killed. Usually something on the scale of the Holocaust would not need to rely heavily on that sort of evidence. Usually they are acknowledged in real time. Nessie will assert "overwhelming evidence" but he does not have much interest in discussing any of it in detail or making a strong, direct argument that compels us to say "therefore gas chambers," "therefore six million." .... As far as I know, no one has argued that a tattoo on an arm, or the Arbeit Macht Frei sign implies, or evidences gas chambers, certainly not me. Yet again, you have made a claim but you cannot link to what you claim actually happening. The evidence of gas chambers comes from the remains of those gas chambers. The Nazis tried as best they could to hide those chambers, by demolishing them or in the case of Krema I at Auschwitz, converting it to an air raid shelter or in the case of camps such as Majdanek, the gas chambers were also used to delouse clothing, so they were just left. The remains of the gas chambers are like finding broken parts of a gun, or a kitchen knife that has been cleaned after a murder and put back in the cutlery tray. The Nazi attempts to hide what happened is consistent with criminals trying to cover up their criminal acts. The Nazis knew they were being accused of using the Kremas and buildings inside the AR camps at gas chambers, it would have made more sense to leave those buildings as evidence that was not happening. When witnesses were asked to describe the gas chambers at TII, they described buildings made out of bricks and concrete, with the chambers lined with tiles of specific colours. When exactly that was found buried at TII, all deniers could do was obsess about the misidentification of a maker's mark with the Star of David. They missed the significance of the finding of physical evidence decades after witnesses described what they had seen. I have discussed the evidence of gas chambers in detail, your suggestion I am not interested in discussing it is not true. It is not argument that should compel you to say "therefore gas chambers", it is evidence. Evidence of the destroyed gas chambers, of all the witnesses who ever worked at those places and of the circumstances of mass transportations to those places, with no corresponding mass transports back out and all the personal property that was left behind and the large areas of disturbed ground contained cremated remains. The gas chambers |
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,207
|
Post by Nessie on Nov 7, 2022 14:23:29 GMT
..... 3. The Danger of Argument by EliminationAn argument by elimination is where you list out all the possibilities and then rule them out one by one. Whatever possibility is left is assumed to be true. Either A or B Not B Therefore A Logically, this is a perfectly valid form of argument if you assume A and B are the only possibilities and you can in fact rule out B. However, these arguments are dangerous in practice because if the complete possibilities are messy and uncertain or if we cannot truly rule out a possibility completely then it is flawed. It is a very common rhetorical tactic precisely because people can't make their case directly and find it easier to present possibilities and strawman the ones they want to reject. Applying this to the holocaust debate, you end up with something like the following. Either A) Millions of Jews were executed OR B) Anything else Not B (i.e., anything else is impossible) Therefore A The only reason to make this more convoluted argument is because attempts to prove A directly run into the problems discussed in #2 (tattoos but no gas chambers). The Nessie version is usually expressed slightly differently. -A "is evidenced" (but please don't ask for details) -B "is not evidenced" (where B = "resettlement") -Therefore A If Nessie is challenged on A, he says he doesn't care if the testimonies make sense, doesn't care about contradictions, etc. But I think if someone has major doubts about A, you will never convince them with this sort of argument by elimination. You will need to discuss the actual evidence in depth. Repeating the same generic arguments over and over and handwaving the details is a waste of time.
My actual version is - A, mass gassings, is evidenced and here is the evidence....for example, I created posts to list and link to all the online evidence for TII and of the archaeological work at all the AR camps. I also regularly link to a list made by Hans, of evidence relating to A-B. You are lying by suggesting I do not want to show the evidence. - B, mass transports and resettlement back out of the camps is not evidenced, and if it had happened, there would be evidence, because it would involve millions of people being moved and accommodated, which would leave millions of potential witnesses, along with documents for the transports and planning of such a huge operation and the physical remains of all the camps where they were accommodated. Logically, it makes far more sense to believe A over B. As for the testimonies, my actual argument is that they should not be taken as literally as deniers like to, that deniers should not conflate hearsay with eyewitness evidence and that they are constantly looking for excuses to dismiss the testimony. The Nazi testimony is not as incredible as the Jewish, so deniers have to switch tactics and claim they were all coerced to lie. Much of what you say does not make sense, makes sense when you factor in how witnesses normally behave, making mistakes, misremembering, exaggerating, incorrectly estimating, using figures of speech etc. |
|
|
|
Post by Gibson on Nov 7, 2022 16:27:30 GMT
I use the methodology I was taught in history lessons at school, then at university and the police. Gather the evidence from witnesses, documents, images, archaeology, forensics, physical items and circumstances. I look for motives, preparation, opportunity, ability and conduct after the crime. I then assess the evidence, for example, is the witness evidence eyewitness or hearsay? What does the document actually say, or the image actually show? What has the archaeologist found? I look for consistencies and contradictions. I also look at what is not evidenced. Once that is done, I look for what is corroborated and how the evidence is logically and chronologically pieced together. From that, I reach a conclusion as to what is proved to have happened. In trying to explain that simple, widely used methodology, I have clearly confused Gibson, who appears to have never had a history lesson, even at school. Is there a distinction in your mind between "reaching a conclusion" based on assessment of evidence and "forming a belief" based on assessment of evidence? |
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,207
|
Post by Nessie on Nov 7, 2022 17:35:16 GMT
I use the methodology I was taught in history lessons at school, then at university and the police. Gather the evidence from witnesses, documents, images, archaeology, forensics, physical items and circumstances. I look for motives, preparation, opportunity, ability and conduct after the crime. I then assess the evidence, for example, is the witness evidence eyewitness or hearsay? What does the document actually say, or the image actually show? What has the archaeologist found? I look for consistencies and contradictions. I also look at what is not evidenced. Once that is done, I look for what is corroborated and how the evidence is logically and chronologically pieced together. From that, I reach a conclusion as to what is proved to have happened. In trying to explain that simple, widely used methodology, I have clearly confused Gibson, who appears to have never had a history lesson, even at school. Is there a distinction in your mind between "reaching a conclusion" based on assessment of evidence and "forming a belief" based on assessment of evidence? If you are forming a belief, you are in the process of doing something. If you are reaching a conclusion, you are at the end of that process.
Did you do history at school?
|
|
|
|
Post by ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐๐ด๐ป๐ธ on Nov 7, 2022 18:29:03 GMT
Is there a distinction in your mind between "reaching a conclusion" based on assessment of evidence and "forming a belief" based on assessment of evidence? Nessie reaches conclusions analytic a priori. The holocaust is all he ever defines and not the reality of its existence; it therefore must be true. Nessie does not understand synthetic a posteriori, or empirical knowledge from which scientific truths are based, or in fact all knowledge. His reasoning is always circular, in orbit around a central non understanding of reality. |
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,207
|
Post by Nessie on Nov 7, 2022 18:46:18 GMT
Is there a distinction in your mind between "reaching a conclusion" based on assessment of evidence and "forming a belief" based on assessment of evidence? Nessie reaches conclusions analytic a priori. The holocaust is all he ever defines and not the reality of its existence; it therefore must be true. Nessie does not understand synthetic a posteriori, or empirical knowledge from which scientific truths are based, or in fact all knowledge. His reasoning is always circular, in orbit around a central non understanding of reality.
You are like Gibson, you make claims without exampling them.
History is not a science.
Did you get any history lessons at school?
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,207
|
Post by Nessie on Nov 7, 2022 18:54:31 GMT
Whether Gibson, Nazgul or anyone else here got any history lessons at school, it would be interesting to know how they would go about establishing what happened at the Battle of Waterloo?
|
|
|
|
Post by ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐๐ด๐ป๐ธ on Nov 7, 2022 19:40:11 GMT
what happened at the Battle of Waterloo? Which regiment (or regiments) defeated Napoleon's Imperial Guard at Waterloo in 1815? |
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,207
|
Post by Nessie on Nov 7, 2022 19:51:44 GMT
what happened at the Battle of Waterloo? Which regiment (or regiments) defeated Napoleon's Imperial Guard at Waterloo in 1815? I take it that you did not do history at school and you would not know how to establish what happened, since you cannot answer what is a very simple question. |
|
|
|
Post by ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐๐ด๐ป๐ธ on Nov 7, 2022 20:21:14 GMT
Which regiment (or regiments) defeated Napoleon's Imperial Guard at Waterloo in 1815? I take it that you did not do history at school and you would not know how to establish what happened, since you cannot answer what is a very simple question. It appears that your study of history is limited. For two centuries, debate has raged around which regiment (or regiments) defeated Napoleon's Imperial Guard at Waterloo in 1815. Interesting topic. Start a thread. |
|
