General Critique of Nessie's Stock Arguments

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.

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.

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"

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.