|
|
Post by Gibson on Nov 15, 2022 16:12:35 GMT
I do not focus on credentials. Maybe I'm a rocket scientist, maybe I deliver pizzas. Why does it matter? I will tell you that I have taken several university-level math courses that covered logic and mathematical proofs. What is your training in logic? I did a year course at university in general philosophy, which included a part on logical fallacies, which explains why I often refer to such when debating deniers. Which explains why you make so many mistakes and show so much misunderstanding about how history is investigated. How can you reliably critique something that you know little about and have no training in? Do you not think you come over as rather arrogant and foolish, suggesting that you can comment on something that you are ignorant about? For example, to go back to something you have repeatedly ignored and the difference between credibility and truthfulness. Do you understand that Wiernik may lack credibility, but he can still be truthful? Do you understand that someone can be credible and a liar? Do you understand that corroboration is the best test of truthfulness? I covered logical fallacies in high school English. Big deal. That's extremely basic. Your training in logic is inferior to mine and to anyone with a background in math or computer science. According to your credentialist principles, you should defer to me on matters of logic. Please describe your formal training in archaeology. |
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,210 
|
Post by Nessie on Nov 15, 2022 17:12:15 GMT
I did a year course at university in general philosophy, which included a part on logical fallacies, which explains why I often refer to such when debating deniers. Which explains why you make so many mistakes and show so much misunderstanding about how history is investigated. How can you reliably critique something that you know little about and have no training in? Do you not think you come over as rather arrogant and foolish, suggesting that you can comment on something that you are ignorant about? For example, to go back to something you have repeatedly ignored and the difference between credibility and truthfulness. Do you understand that Wiernik may lack credibility, but he can still be truthful? Do you understand that someone can be credible and a liar? Do you understand that corroboration is the best test of truthfulness? I covered logical fallacies in high school English. Big deal. That's extremely basic. Your training in logic is inferior to mine and to anyone with a background in math or computer science. According to your credentialist principles, you should defer to me on matters of logic. Please describe your formal training in archaeology. Logic is not one topic and your logic from maths is not as relevant as the logic from philosophy and in particular logical fallacies. If you did logical fallacies in high school, why do you use them in your arguments?
I have no training in archaeology.
Can you answer my questions please...
Do you understand that Wiernik may lack credibility, but he can still be truthful?
Do you understand that someone can be credible and a liar?
Do you understand that corroboration is the best test of truthfulness?
|
|
|
|
Post by ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐๐ด๐ป๐ธ on Nov 16, 2022 0:53:21 GMT
Do you understand that Wiernik may lack credibility, but he can still be truthful? Credibility hinges on perceptions of competence and trustworthiness. Wiernik said the following: link- It is my belief that while I was there about 3,500,000 bodies were burnt.
- They were able to burn 10,000 to 12,000 on one pyre
- Anyone who crossed the threshold of Treblinka was doomed.
- A young Jewish woman jumped over the 9ft barbed wire fence and ran
These are incredible claims, the first one dismissed as being wrong by the Holocaust Society. The second claim is also fallacious. Bodies do not burn, despite what Rajchman suggests. We know that people left the Treblinka II camp. Hurdling a 2.7 m fence is absurd. These 4 ridiculous statements is why this person is not credible. Nothing else said should be trusted. The nonsense goes hand in hand with The blood came up to the surface and burned as if it were fuel. |
|
|
|
Post by Gibson on Nov 16, 2022 0:54:58 GMT
I covered logical fallacies in high school English. Big deal. That's extremely basic. Your training in logic is inferior to mine and to anyone with a background in math or computer science. According to your credentialist principles, you should defer to me on matters of logic. Please describe your formal training in archaeology. Logic is not one topic and your logic from maths is not as relevant as the logic from philosophy and in particular logical fallacies. If you did logical fallacies in high school, why do you use them in your arguments?
I have no training in archaeology.
Can you answer my questions please...
Do you understand that Wiernik may lack credibility, but he can still be truthful?
Do you understand that someone can be credible and a liar?
Do you understand that corroboration is the best test of truthfulness?
Argument from incredulity is simply when someone says that because they can't imagine or understand how something could be true, it must therefore be false. Or you don't see how it could be false, so it must be true. An example where it would actually make sense would be difficult scientific concepts. Some scientific concepts are counterintuitive and hard to comprehend. If someone can't understand a concept and says something like "I don't see how that could be true," that would be an "argument from incredulity" (assuming the comment was intended to be an "argument"). Within a holocaust context, it's the revisionists who are interested in science. Your side usually gets upset and says it's sacrilegious to analyze the holocaust rigorously. They will only do it reactively to try produce counterarguments. If I question cremation times or fuel requirements of gassing times or whatever and I base this on some sort of data or estimate, the analysis could be right or wrong but it is NOT an argument from incredulity. You are misusing this term. Where I think you get confused, because you have no concept of probability, is that you think that revisionists must prove that something is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE in order to reject it. One logical fallacy you are frequently guilty of is that of begging the question. www.law.cornell.edu/wex/beg_the_question |
|
|
|
Post by Gibson on Nov 16, 2022 1:44:36 GMT
Can you answer my questions please... Do you understand that Wiernik may lack credibility, but he can still be truthful?
Do you understand that someone can be credible and a liar?
Do you understand that corroboration is the best test of truthfulness?
In theory, sure, Wiernik's account could be substantially true, despite the silly and propagandistic style of it. But if they had lots of hard evidence to corroborate these stories, why wasn't it used? Why have so many of the historical works and war crimes trials relied so heavily on testimonies? You suggested it's because people supposedly prefer to read more human accounts but at Nuremberg there was actually a preference for documentary evidence. If they'd had stronger evidence they would have used it. Hilberg cited Hoess over and over because he had to. Hilberg cited Gerstein, a testimony he had reservations about and which he tried to minimize, because he had to. Arad cited Wiernik over and over because he didn't have anything better. |
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,210
|
Post by Nessie on Nov 16, 2022 9:13:42 GMT
Do you understand that Wiernik may lack credibility, but he can still be truthful? Credibility hinges on perceptions of competence and trustworthiness. Wiernik said the following: link- It is my belief that while I was there about 3,500,000 bodies were burnt.
- They were able to burn 10,000 to 12,000 on one pyre
- Anyone who crossed the threshold of Treblinka was doomed.
- A young Jewish woman jumped over the 9ft barbed wire fence and ran
These are incredible claims, the first one dismissed as being wrong by the Holocaust Society. The second claim is also fallacious. Bodies do not burn, despite what Rajchman suggests. We know that people left the Treblinka II camp. Hurdling a 2.7 m fence is absurd. These 4 ridiculous statements is why this person is not credible. Nothing else said should be trusted. The nonsense goes hand in hand with The blood came up to the surface and burned as if it were fuel.All you have done is repeat the reasons why you do not find Wiernik credible. Does that mean therefore he is not being truthful?
Do you understand that someone can be credible, and a liar?
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,210
|
Post by Nessie on Nov 16, 2022 9:22:52 GMT
Logic is not one topic and your logic from maths is not as relevant as the logic from philosophy and in particular logical fallacies. If you did logical fallacies in high school, why do you use them in your arguments?
I have no training in archaeology.
Can you answer my questions please... Do you understand that Wiernik may lack credibility, but he can still be truthful?
Do you understand that someone can be credible and a liar?
Do you understand that corroboration is the best test of truthfulness?
Argument from incredulity is simply when someone says that because they can't imagine or understand how something could be true, it must therefore be false. Or you don't see how it could be false, so it must be true. An example where it would actually make sense would be difficult scientific concepts. Some scientific concepts are counterintuitive and hard to comprehend. If someone can't understand a concept and says something like "I don't see how that could be true," that would be an "argument from incredulity" (assuming the comment was intended to be an "argument"). Within a holocaust context, it's the revisionists who are interested in science. Your side usually gets upset and says it's sacrilegious to analyze the holocaust rigorously. They will only do it reactively to try produce counterarguments. If I question cremation times or fuel requirements of gassing times or whatever and I base this on some sort of data or estimate, the analysis could be right or wrong but it is NOT an argument from incredulity. You are misusing this term. Where I think you get confused, because you have no concept of probability, is that you think that revisionists must prove that something is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE in order to reject it. You have ignored all my questions and yet again explained why you do not find the witnesses credible. I know why you find their claims incredible, you interpret their claims as literal and as if witnesses describe what they see accurately and never make mistakes, exaggerate, mis-estimate etc. Do you understand that someone can describe a mass pyre in a way that you find incredible because of the words they use, but they are still being truthful about mass pyres? Do you understand that someone could describe a mass pyre in a way that is entirely credible and be lying because there were no mass pyres? Do you understand that corroborating physical evidence of ash and cremated remains is the best test of truthfulness? I am not arguing there were mass pyres. I am basing my claim on corroborating evidence of mass pyres. Multiple witnesses outside the camp speak to months of burning, a terrible smell. Multiple witnesses inside the camp speak to seeing mass pyres. There is the circumstantial evidence that, for fear of the discovery of so many buried bodies, the Nazis started to dig mass graves up and burn the corpses at all the AR camps and various other mass murder sites. There is the physical evidence of large areas of buried ash and cremated remains. It is from that corroborating evidence (not argument) that I prove mass pyres happened. |
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,210
|
Post by Nessie on Nov 16, 2022 9:32:17 GMT
Can you answer my questions please... Do you understand that Wiernik may lack credibility, but he can still be truthful?
Do you understand that someone can be credible and a liar?
Do you understand that corroboration is the best test of truthfulness?
In theory, sure, Wiernik's account could be substantially true, despite the silly and propagandistic style of it. What is the best way to establish truthfulness? Where is your evidence, that the other evidence from documents, archaeology, circumstances, etc has not been used by historians? I have answered that question. The witnesses give chronology and context to the other evidence, because they speak to a time period, whereas other evidence, such as documents, images and archaeology are snap shots of a moment in time. Wiernik speaks to mass transports and gassings and mass graves and pyres and the circumstances of what happened inside the camp. The documents recording the transports to the camp only speak to the mass transports, those documents do not also evidence gassings, pyres etc. The archaeological finds only evidence that there were cremations at the camp and that there is a lot of disturbed ground, that evidence does not explain the circumstances. |
|
|
|
Post by ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐๐ด๐ป๐ธ on Nov 16, 2022 10:45:40 GMT
Do you understand that someone can be credible, and a liar? It depends on what they are lying about. If it is the same issue as their credibility on those matters there is an issue. A credible liar? Lying is intentional deception; this damages credibility in assertion and credibility in implicature. Lying is deceptive communication and as such put the author with very limited credibility. |
|
|
|
Post by Gibson on Nov 16, 2022 13:34:02 GMT
Argument from incredulity is simply when someone says that because they can't imagine or understand how something could be true, it must therefore be false. Or you don't see how it could be false, so it must be true. An example where it would actually make sense would be difficult scientific concepts. Some scientific concepts are counterintuitive and hard to comprehend. If someone can't understand a concept and says something like "I don't see how that could be true," that would be an "argument from incredulity" (assuming the comment was intended to be an "argument"). Within a holocaust context, it's the revisionists who are interested in science. Your side usually gets upset and says it's sacrilegious to analyze the holocaust rigorously. They will only do it reactively to try produce counterarguments. If I question cremation times or fuel requirements of gassing times or whatever and I base this on some sort of data or estimate, the analysis could be right or wrong but it is NOT an argument from incredulity. You are misusing this term. Where I think you get confused, because you have no concept of probability, is that you think that revisionists must prove that something is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE in order to reject it. You have ignored all my questions and yet again explained why you do not find the witnesses credible. I know why you find their claims incredible, you interpret their claims as literal and as if witnesses describe what they see accurately and never make mistakes, exaggerate, mis-estimate etc. Do you understand that someone can describe a mass pyre in a way that you find incredible because of the words they use, but they are still being truthful about mass pyres? Do you understand that someone could describe a mass pyre in a way that is entirely credible and be lying because there were no mass pyres? Do you understand that corroborating physical evidence of ash and cremated remains is the best test of truthfulness? I am not arguing there were mass pyres. I am basing my claim on corroborating evidence of mass pyres. Multiple witnesses outside the camp speak to months of burning, a terrible smell. Multiple witnesses inside the camp speak to seeing mass pyres. There is the circumstantial evidence that, for fear of the discovery of so many buried bodies, the Nazis started to dig mass graves up and burn the corpses at all the AR camps and various other mass murder sites. There is the physical evidence of large areas of buried ash and cremated remains. It is from that corroborating evidence (not argument) that I prove mass pyres happened. Nessie. There's a huge difference between 100 bodies, 500 bodies, 10,000 bodies, 50,000 bodies, 100,000 bodies, 500,000 bodies, 1,000,000 bodies. You are treating it as a binary true/false, but with that approach you would have no way of distinguishing between, say, 5,000 non-gassed bodies and 900,000 gassed bodies. The most obvious way to corroborate that 900,000 were killed at a camp would be to find the 900,000 bodies. The story of course maintains that these bodies were all burned, ignoring entirely the difficulties such would entail. How convenient that this means the story is corroborated by NOT finding any bodies. Rather we should expect to find "ash" which is of course much more difficult to translate into a number of bodies, particularly when we must rely on Communist propaganda for the forensics. At this point, I'm sure you'd say the deportation figures corroborate the numbers. But again only if we assume that everyone was gassed and burned. The problem here is that the aspects of the question for which there is best corroboration are the least extraordinary parts of the story. This is like if you I were to brag about catching a 100 pound trout and when asked for proof I showed you my fishing pole, my fishing license, my fishing boat, my receipt from the bait shop, etc. This would be proof of the mundane (that I fish) but not of the extraordinary (that I caught a 100 pound trout). |
|
|
|
Post by Gibson on Nov 16, 2022 13:56:48 GMT
In theory, sure, Wiernik's account could be substantially true, despite the silly and propagandistic style of it. What is the best way to establish truthfulness? Where is your evidence, that the other evidence from documents, archaeology, circumstances, etc has not been used by historians? I have answered that question. The witnesses give chronology and context to the other evidence, because they speak to a time period, whereas other evidence, such as documents, images and archaeology are snap shots of a moment in time. Wiernik speaks to mass transports and gassings and mass graves and pyres and the circumstances of what happened inside the camp. The documents recording the transports to the camp only speak to the mass transports, those documents do not also evidence gassings, pyres etc. The archaeological finds only evidence that there were cremations at the camp and that there is a lot of disturbed ground, that evidence does not explain the circumstances. The only forensics done initially were the various propaganda reports on the camps done by the Allies. Take a look at Hilberg. His book contains immense detail, lots of stuff nobody cares about. But for the gas chambers what sources does he use? Overwhelmingly testimonies. A few documents. No forensics whatsoever. This point was frequently made Faurisson. These are "paper historians." Faurisson did "paper" research as well but he also felt there needed to be an investigation of the "crime scene." This is most definitely NOT the approach of the traditional scholarship. This came up at the first Zundel trial. Here was Pressac's assessment of the situation in 1989. phdn.org/archives/holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/pressac/technique-and-operation/pressac0264.shtml |
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,210
|
Post by Nessie on Nov 16, 2022 15:11:00 GMT
Do you understand that someone can be credible, and a liar? It depends on what they are lying about. If it is the same issue as their credibility on those matters there is an issue. A credible liar? Lying is intentional deception; this damages credibility in assertion and credibility in implicature. Lying is deceptive communication and as such put the author with very limited credibility. The answer is yes, you know fine well that there are people who can lie and be very convincing. Credibility does not determine truthfulness. Someone can come over as credible and lie, and vice versa. Credibility alone is dependent on opinion and perception. If someone wants to believe another, they are more inclined to find them credible. If someone wants to disbelieve another, they are more likely to fond them not credible.
You cannot reliably use credibility to determine truthfulness.You need evidence to do that.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,210
|
Post by Nessie on Nov 16, 2022 15:22:59 GMT
You have ignored all my questions and yet again explained why you do not find the witnesses credible. I know why you find their claims incredible, you interpret their claims as literal and as if witnesses describe what they see accurately and never make mistakes, exaggerate, mis-estimate etc. Do you understand that someone can describe a mass pyre in a way that you find incredible because of the words they use, but they are still being truthful about mass pyres? Do you understand that someone could describe a mass pyre in a way that is entirely credible and be lying because there were no mass pyres? Do you understand that corroborating physical evidence of ash and cremated remains is the best test of truthfulness? I am not arguing there were mass pyres. I am basing my claim on corroborating evidence of mass pyres. Multiple witnesses outside the camp speak to months of burning, a terrible smell. Multiple witnesses inside the camp speak to seeing mass pyres. There is the circumstantial evidence that, for fear of the discovery of so many buried bodies, the Nazis started to dig mass graves up and burn the corpses at all the AR camps and various other mass murder sites. There is the physical evidence of large areas of buried ash and cremated remains. It is from that corroborating evidence (not argument) that I prove mass pyres happened. Nessie. There's a huge difference between 100 bodies, 500 bodies, 10,000 bodies, 50,000 bodies, 100,000 bodies, 500,000 bodies, 1,000,000 bodies. You are treating it as a binary true/false, but with that approach you would have no way of distinguishing between, say, 5,000 non-gassed bodies and 900,000 gassed bodies. The most obvious way to corroborate that 900,000 were killed at a camp would be to find the 900,000 bodies. The story of course maintains that these bodies were all burned, ignoring entirely the difficulties such would entail. How convenient that this means the story is corroborated by NOT finding any bodies. Rather we should expect to find "ash" which is of course much more difficult to translate into a number of bodies, particularly when we must rely on Communist propaganda for the forensics. The witness claims are that the mass graves were dug up, bodies removed, cremated and mixed back into the ground. If that was true, what would expect an archaeological survey to find? The strongest evidence to corroborate witness claims of mass graves, exhumations, cremations and mixing the cremains back into the ground, would be archaeological evidence. The evidence of mass transports to the camp, with no corresponding mass transports out, is circumstantial corroborating evidence. True, but if I also said that I had cooked and eaten that huge trout, but here are the bony remains I removed, then that would be physical evidence to add to the circumstantial evidence. I see that yet again, you have refused to directly answer my questions, so again; Do you understand that someone can describe a mass pyre in a way that you find incredible because of the words they use, but they are still being truthful about mass pyres? Do you understand that someone could describe a mass pyre in a way that is entirely credible and be lying because there were no mass pyres? Do you understand that corroborating physical evidence of ash and cremated remains is the best test of truthfulness? You should know by now that dodging my questions will not work. |
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,210
|
Post by Nessie on Nov 16, 2022 15:27:16 GMT
What is the best way to establish truthfulness? Where is your evidence, that the other evidence from documents, archaeology, circumstances, etc has not been used by historians? I have answered that question. The witnesses give chronology and context to the other evidence, because they speak to a time period, whereas other evidence, such as documents, images and archaeology are snap shots of a moment in time. Wiernik speaks to mass transports and gassings and mass graves and pyres and the circumstances of what happened inside the camp. The documents recording the transports to the camp only speak to the mass transports, those documents do not also evidence gassings, pyres etc. The archaeological finds only evidence that there were cremations at the camp and that there is a lot of disturbed ground, that evidence does not explain the circumstances. The only forensics done initially were the various propaganda reports on the camps done by the Allies. It is obvious what you are doing there. Since the initial site examinations found what does not suit your beliefs, i.e. large areas of disturbed ground containing ash and cremated remains and those initial reports have been corroborated by later day examinations, you want to dismiss them as "propaganda". OK, so what to do? How do we reliably assess that witness evidence? How do we reliably establish what did happen inside the AR camps and A-B Kremas? Describe how you would go about investigating what happened. |
|
|
|
Post by been_there on Nov 16, 2022 18:29:37 GMT
It depends on what they are lying about. If it is the same issue as their credibility on those matters there is an issue. A credible liar? Lying is intentional deception; this damages credibility in assertion and credibility in implicature. Lying is deceptive communication and as such put the author with very limited credibility. ...You cannot reliably use credibility to determine truthfulness.You need evidence to do that.
And the claimed mass-gassing of 2.75 million Jews has no empirical evidence. It only has extremely weak anecdotal evidence. As has been explained to this troll multiple times, anecdotal evidence is always, ALWAYS disregarded if the forensic and empirical evidence refutes it. Which is the case here. And that applies both to historical narratives and criminal trials. The absence of anything but anecdotal evidence โ plus the empirical, forensic evidence refuting the cult-belief โ is why the promulgators of the holocaust industry: i.) refuse to discuss the lack of empirical, forensic evidence supporting the H-narrative; ii.) ban, censor and criminalise sharing of the empirical, forensic evidence refuting the H-narrative; iii.) refuse to allow independent, skeptical, truly scientific investigations at the alleged mass-gassing sites, and iv.) protect their unevidenced calumny of the German nation with draconian, anti-intellect, thought-control laws that forbid and demonise any questions, facts, evidence that demonstrates the unreliability of the legally-protected narrative. It more resembles a cult than a historiography. Which is why skeptics and non-believers are so hated by the H true-believers. |
|
