General Critique of Nessie's Stock Arguments

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 reasoning

This 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 Incredulity

Nessie 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 Elimination

An 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.