|
Post by Gibson on Nov 7, 2022 21:52:35 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? 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?
In that usage they are pretty much synonymous. The word conclusion would suggest there was some process to it, but a conclusion can be sound or erroneous. Similarly, beliefs can be extremely well-supported or baseless and crazy or anything in between. Beliefs are not, as a rule, false and they are not necessarily based on weak evidence. You have beliefs. Revisionists have beliefs. "Revisionists are wrong because they have beliefs" Meaningless "Revisionists are wrong because their beliefs are wrong" Not a real argument - circular "Nessie is right because his beliefs are based on evidence" Not a real argument - circular "Revisionists are wrong because their beliefs are not supported by evidence" Not a real argument - circular
|
|
|
Post by Gibson on Nov 7, 2022 22:11:32 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. Here are some things that you have said to me previously. You have repeatedly told me that inference is invalid. "The correct method for investigating history, is with evidence. Not inferences or judgements. "It does not matter what I believe. What happened in the Kremas is not reliably determined by what I believe. It is very arrogant and logically flawed to think that anyone's belief is a reliable indicator of what happened." "Hoess's claim that people were gassed inside the Kremas, is truthful. I know that because of the corroborating evidence for gassings. Evidence, not belief, reliably determines if something happened." "The denier argument of gassings are too incredible to believe is logically flawed because personal incredulity is not a reliable indicator of whether something happened." If determining what was true and false flowed automatically from "the evidence," then people would never disagree.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,206
|
Post by Nessie on Nov 8, 2022 9:02:45 GMT
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?
In that usage they are pretty much synonymous. The word conclusion would suggest there was some process to it, but a conclusion can be sound or erroneous. Similarly, beliefs can be extremely well-supported or baseless and crazy or anything in between. Beliefs are not, as a rule, false and they are not necessarily based on weak evidence. You have beliefs. Revisionists have beliefs. "Revisionists are wrong because they have beliefs" Meaningless "Revisionists are wrong because their beliefs are wrong" Not a real argument - circular Since you have never had any lessons in the study of history, it is no wonder you do not understand how historical events are evidenced. It is simple. Gather evidence from witnesses, documents, images, archaeology, circumstances etc. Assess that evidence as to which is the strongest, such as forensics and weakest, such as hearsay witnesses. Look for corroboration and how the evidence logically converges. You have detached logical conclusions from evidence, as if evidence is not the key to establishing what happened. Without evidence, how can you determine what happened?
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,206
|
Post by Nessie on Nov 8, 2022 9:12:57 GMT
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. Here are some things that you have said to me previously. You have repeatedly told me that inference is invalid. "The correct method for investigating history, is with evidence. Not inferences or judgements. The context there, is not inferring or judging, based on opinion, with no evidence. Inference, where a conclusion is reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning, is fine. I use inference based on evidence and reason. You use inference based on personal opinion. There is contemporaneous, corroborating evidence of gassings in the Kremas. In denier opinion that evidence is too unbelievable to accept and something else must have happened, which deniers then disagree on and cannot evidence (it was used as a bomb shelter, for mass showering or delousing). Not necessarily, because evidence can be ambiguous or people disagree, because they have seen different evidence and are unaware of all the evidence, or someone does not understand evidencing, or they have an agenda and want to mould the evidence to that agenda. Deniers have an agenda, most do not understanding evidencing, they concentrate on a small part of what is evidenced and are ignorant of much of the evidence and they think there are ambiguities, in particular from the oblique language used by the Nazis.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,206
|
Post by Nessie on Nov 8, 2022 9:13:56 GMT
Since neither Gibson nor Nazgul have any training, even at school, as to how to study history and gather evidence, it is no wonder they get confused.
|
|
|
Post by ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐๐ด๐ป๐ธ on Nov 8, 2022 9:31:05 GMT
Since neither Gibson nor Nazgul have any training, even at school, as to how to study history and gather evidence, it is no wonder they get confused. You have no idea what training I have or Mel has.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,206
|
Post by Nessie on Nov 8, 2022 9:46:47 GMT
Since neither Gibson nor Nazgul have any training, even at school, as to how to study history and gather evidence, it is no wonder they get confused. You have no idea what training I have or Mel has. So why not tell me? Then answer my question about how would you investigate what happened at Waterloo.
|
|
|
Post by Gibson on Nov 8, 2022 13:26:22 GMT
Here are some things that you have said to me previously. You have repeatedly told me that inference is invalid. "The correct method for investigating history, is with evidence. Not inferences or judgements. The context there, is not inferring or judging, based on opinion, with no evidence. Inference, where a conclusion is reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning, is fine. I use inference based on evidence and reason. You use inference based on personal opinion. There is contemporaneous, corroborating evidence of gassings in the Kremas. In denier opinion that evidence is too unbelievable to accept and something else must have happened, which deniers then disagree on and cannot evidence (it was used as a bomb shelter, for mass showering or delousing). Not necessarily, because evidence can be ambiguous or people disagree, because they have seen different evidence and are unaware of all the evidence, or someone does not understand evidencing, or they have an agenda and want to mould the evidence to that agenda. Deniers have an agenda, most do not understanding evidencing, they concentrate on a small part of what is evidenced and are ignorant of much of the evidence and they think there are ambiguities, in particular from the oblique language used by the Nazis. "Nessie's conclusions are based on evidence and reason and are correct" "Revisionist conclusions are based on opinion and are incorrect" You're not saying anything! You're just asserting that you are right. You are not interested in discussing evidence. You make lists of witnesses and things like that, but you don't want to analyze any of it in depth. Whenever something is pointed out that conflicts with your beliefs and makes you uncomfortable you avoid the difficulties and derail things with utterly meaningless statements like the above. I have seen you do this over and over and over.
|
|
|
Post by Gibson on Nov 8, 2022 13:38:08 GMT
Since neither Gibson nor Nazgul have any training, even at school, as to how to study history and gather evidence, it is no wonder they get confused. Since you don't believe in inference, it doesn't matter what training anyone has. Or is your position that only people with the "appropriate" background can draw sensible inferences? Nobody is impressed that you have an undergrad degree in history and used to be a cop. I'm not knocking that background, but nothing about it inclines me to defer to your opinions.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,206
|
Post by Nessie on Nov 8, 2022 13:47:01 GMT
...."Nessie's conclusions are based on evidence and reason and are correct" "Revisionist conclusions are based on opinion and are incorrect" That is correct. No, I am explaining why I am correct. A methodology based on assessing the evidence and then making logical conclusions deduced from the best evidence, is a more reliable and credible methodolgy than the denier opinion, fallacy based methodology. So you claim, but you provide no examples of that. I produce more than just lists of evidence and have discussed specific evidence in detail with various deniers.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,206
|
Post by Nessie on Nov 8, 2022 13:54:43 GMT
Since neither Gibson nor Nazgul have any training, even at school, as to how to study history and gather evidence, it is no wonder they get confused. Since you don't believe in inference.... Again, inference is defined as "a conclusion reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning". I believe in inference that is evidence based. I do believe in inference, when it is evidence based and logical. No, but they are more likely to draw sensible inferences than someone with no training who thinks opinion is as important and reliable as evidence in determining what happened in the past. I am not asking you to defer to my opinions. I am asking you to defer to the evidence. Mass gassing is the only evidenced event to have taken place inside the A-B Kremas and AR camps. There is no evidence that something else happened, such as mass showering, delousing, sheltering from bombs or customs processing took place. The logical inference from the evidence is that, no matter what your opinion is of the evidence, mass gassings happened.
|
|
|
Post by Gibson on Nov 8, 2022 14:31:07 GMT
It goes without saying that you think you are right. There's no need to announce this constantly.
Any attempt to discuss evidence with you is invariably met with amateurish babble about logic. Any attempt to evaluate the accuracy of a witness statement is dismissed on "incredulity" grounds. You say it's "corroborated" and so the we can ignore errors and contradictions. Any attempt to discuss the "corroboration" is likewise dismissed on "incredulity" grounds.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,206
|
Post by Nessie on Nov 8, 2022 16:24:51 GMT
It goes without saying that you think you are right. There's no need to announce this constantly. It is not me who thinks the methodology I use to assess evidence and determine what that evidence proves, it is all schools and university history departments. That is because when assessing a witness statement, you use personal opinion and argument from incredulity, rather than show an understanding of witness behaviour, known issues with witness evidence and how corroboration works. We discussed some specifics on that other forum, but you ignored much of what I explained, or showed you did not understand me. If you want, pick a specific example of evidence and I will go through it with you, showing you how to assess it.
|
|
|
Post by ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐๐ด๐ป๐ธ on Nov 8, 2022 20:37:50 GMT
when assessing a witness statement, you use personal opinion and argument from incredulity, rather than show an understanding of witness behaviour, known issues with witness evidence and how corroboration works. There are 4 kinds of evidence: - Testimonial...eyewitnesses
- Documentary...paper
- Demonstrative...photos
- Real...weapon
All of these kinds of evidence can be faked; eyewitnesses can lie, documents can be forged, photos can be out of context while real evidence can be planted. Holocaust stories have no shortage of resplendent liars; forged documentation was a thriving business in WWII. Not only photos out of context is fraudulent but there have been examples of edits. Real evidence is easily planted such as police planting shell cases at a crime scene. Nessie uses the word "corroboration" referring to other "fake news" of the era.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,206
|
Post by Nessie on Nov 9, 2022 12:52:46 GMT
when assessing a witness statement, you use personal opinion and argument from incredulity, rather than show an understanding of witness behaviour, known issues with witness evidence and how corroboration works. There are 4 kinds of evidence: - Testimonial...eyewitnesses
- Documentary...paper
- Demonstrative...photos
- Real...weapon
All of these kinds of evidence can be faked; eyewitnesses can lie, documents can be forged, photos can be out of context while real evidence can be planted. Holocaust stories have no shortage of resplendent liars; forged documentation was a thriving business in WWII. Not only photos out of context is fraudulent but there have been examples of edits. Real evidence is easily planted such as police planting shell cases at a crime scene. Nessie uses the word "corroboration" referring to other "fake news" of the era. It is physically impossible to fake the mass gassing and shooting of c5.5 million people by planting false evidence and hiding or destroying all the evidence of what did happen.
|
|