General Critique of Nessie's Stock Arguments

I'm good with the Topf engineers not identifying any Jews except some carrying dirt around. Or the wooden barrack connected to the gas chamber via a closed corridor and so forth. The more variation, the richer the folklore is what I always says.

Nope, wasn't there.

As humans, we often find ourselves believing things that we cannot explicitly evidence. We hold faith in concepts, beliefs, and ideas that cannot be proven definitively by logic, reason, or scientific inquiry. This may seem counterintuitive, as we live in a world that places great value on empirical evidence, facts, and figures. However, there are certain intangible aspects of the human experience that elude these methods of understanding. One may argue that our belief in the unprovable is an essential aspect of the human condition, intrinsic to the very fabric of our being. In this essay, we will explore the reasons behind believing in what we cannot evidence.

One reason why we believe in things that cannot be proven is intuition. Intuition refers to a deep, instinctive understanding of something that cannot be easily articulated or explained. It is a feeling that something is true or correct, even if there is no hard evidence to support it. Intuition can be said to be a form of knowledge that is not obtained through traditional empirical methods, but rather through a deep understanding of the self and the universe around us. We often rely on intuition in situations where logic and evidence fail us. For example, we may have an instinctual feeling that a particular career or path in life is right for us, even if we cannot explain why. This intuitive sense is not quantifiable and cannot be reduced to measurable data points, but it guides us nonetheless.

Besides practical experiences, there are those that provide us with spiritual satisfaction. For instance, the beauty of a sunset or the joy that comes with bonding with loved ones is subjectively felt in the moment, and although one might try to explain it logically, there is no factual evidence to support the experience. It is this quality of experience that allows us to believe in things that we cannot prove objectively, yet still hold them as truths.

Another reason we believe in things we cannot prove is the power of storytelling. Humans have a natural inclination towards storytelling, as it helps us make sense of our experiences and understand the world around us. Stories can evoke deep emotions, help us connect with others, and impart messages that resonate with our core beliefs and values. We often believe in stories, myths, and legends that have been passed down through generations, even if they cannot be proven empirically. This is because they speak to something deeper within us, something that resonates with our sense of purpose, identity, and meaning.

Additionally, we sometimes believe in things that cannot be proven because of the limitations of our knowledge and understanding. There are certain questions that we simply do not have the answers to, and in these cases, we must rely on faith or belief to fill the gaps. For example, we do not know definitively what happens to us after we die. Despite years of scientific inquiry, we do not have a clear understanding of the nature of consciousness or the soul. We can speculate and theorize based on what we do know, but ultimately, we must rely on our belief system to fill in the gaps of our understanding.

Believing in things that cannot be proven are sometimes seen as irrational or illogical. However, this viewpoint fails to account for the complex nature of the human experience. We live in a world that is full of mystery, complexity, and subtlety. Our beliefs and values are shaped by a multitude of factors, including intuition, storytelling, and the limitations of our knowledge and understanding. By recognizing the importance of these intangible aspects of our being, we can gain a deeper appreciation for the unique ways in which we make sense of the world around us.

In conclusion, we believe in things that cannot be proven because of intuition, the fusion of sensory experience, the power of storytelling, and the limitations of our knowledge and understanding. These intangible aspects of the human experience are essential for understanding our place in the world and connecting with something greater than ourselves. Ultimately, our beliefs are a reflection of who we are as individuals and as a society, and they play a significant role in shaping our collective identity and cultural consciousness.

Where is your evidence that most people rely on evidence? All evidence needs analysis.

The statement "I, and most people, prefer to rely on evidence" can be deconstructed into two parts: the supposed personal preference of the speaker and the supposed preference of most people.

The first part of the statement is subjective and, in isolation, cannot be disputed as it is a matter of personal opinion. If the speaker prefers to rely on evidence, then that is their choice. Whether what is endorsed is also adhered to will be revisited shortly.

The second part of the statement, however, is contentious. The claim that most people prefer to rely on evidence is not supported by any evidence and is therefore a baseless assertion. In fact, surveys have indicated that, on any given complex issue, rather than seek evidence that underpins any conclusion before accepting it as fact, a significant percentage of the population relies on the opinions and views of others. Another percentage of the population believes in matters that go against so-called established evidence.

Importantly, the statement does not necessarily suggest that this preference is always acted upon. While the speaker and others may have a purported inclination to rely on evidence, they may also have other factors influencing their decisions or may not always have access to the necessary evidence. Hence, the preference for evidence-based reasoning does not automatically guarantee that it will always be put into practice.

Moreover, the use of the word "evidence" is also vague and can be interpreted in many ways. What may be deemed as evidence to one person may not be sufficient for another. Therefore, the statement is insufficient as it fails to specify what type or level of evidence is preferred.

Indeed, the speaker tries to shed more light on the initial statement in a subsequent comment. Ever slippery, the speaker clarified that they and most people prefer to rely on historians' use of evidence as available in history books. Yet in older remarks, the speaker admitted to exclusive dependence on online sources. Taken as a whole, it indicates that the speaker themselves doesn't possess either the skills, drive, or means to realize their pursued aspiration.

In conclusion, while the preference for evidence may be a sound principle, the statement, as it stands, is faulty due to its unsubstantiated claim regarding the preference of most people and its lack of specificity regarding what constitutes as evidence. The elucidation is fatal. It waters down the term "evidence" to faith-based reliance on history books. The speaker's lack of commitment to their preference is ironic, given that they champion it.

Nessie explaining his notions of "corroboration.  (See #2 in the OP).

It is arrogant to the extreme for a hoaxer to declare they have fraudulent evidence as fact.