Post by Nessie on Sept 3, 2023 15:22:07 GMT
Been-there alleges the history of the Holocaust is a fake history, that relies on logical fallacies.
rodoh.freeforums.net/thread/581/fake-historiography-relying-logical-fallacies?page=1&scrollTo=13828
The reply to that is simple. He is wrong. The history of the Holocaust relies on evidence from the normal sources of evidence used to determine all historical events, which are variously witnesses, documents, images, archaeology, physical items, forensics and circumstantial evidence. Historians do not need to argue there were mass gassings. Instead they use evidence to prove there were mass gassings.
It is Holocaust denial/revisionism that is a fake history relying on logical fallacies. Instead of producing an evidenced history of what happened to the Jews during WWII, using witnesses, documents etc, revisionists argue that mass gassings did not happen, based on the logical fallacy of argument from incredulity. They then incorrectly claim that being asked what happened instead, is reversing the burden of proof.
For example, to evidence mass gassings, historians use the testimony of witness A, who states he was at camp Z, and he had to work at its gas chambers. Revisionists, instead of using witness B, who also states he worked at camp Z, and he had to work at a place where instead of gassing, there were mass showers, argue that witness A is a liar, because he claims are physically impossible and too incredible to believe. Revisionists do that because there is no witness B. There is no evidence from any source of evidence, something other than gassings happened at camp Z.
Historians then go to use evidence from Nazi documents that hundreds of thousands arrived at camp Z and there are no corresponding documents of mass departures or arrivals at any other camp. Revisionists, instead of using Nazi documents that record mass departures or arrivals, as there are none, argue the documentary evidence of mass arrivals is either faked or misinterpreted. Revisionists are having to argue their version of history, rather than produce evidence to support it.
That is also the case with the archaeological evidence. Archaeologists use evidence from excavations at camp Z and various survey methods to trace large areas of disturbed ground containing cremated remains. Rather than produce evidence of large areas of undisturbed ground at camp Z, which would prove there could not have been mass graves, revisionists variously argue not enough of the ground is disturbed, or the archaeologists are being dishonest about their findings, or even that the Nazis could not have dug graves as described. Again, revisionists argue their version of history, rather than evidence it.
Not all of the revisionist arguments are logical fallacies. When they argue there is not enough disturbed ground at camp Z to contain the mass graves alleged, that is reasonable. But, they then fail to provide any evidence as to what the grave sizes actually were and how many did die at the camp, and instead, their argument consists of not being able to work out how hundreds of thousands could have been buried there and that witness claims are unbelievable, they have resorted to the argument from incredulity.
Historians use evidence to prove what happened. Revisionists use a methodology unique to them, that relies on logical fallacies, which cannot evidence and prove what did happen. Been-there has parroted an argument I have been making for some time now, and he tried to reverse it, suggesting historians use logical fallacies, instead of evidence. Clearly that is not true, as all the evidence he discusses, whether that is the witnesses he does not believe, documents, archaeology or whatever, has come from the historians.
It is also worth noting that been-there mentions "AD HOMINEM...i.) criticises and attacks the person making the argument, ii.) instead of criticising the actual argument being made; instead of attacking what that person is saying. The problem with that is he regularly uses that form of argument, as he avoids usernames and prefers to refer to his opponent as "a retard or a troll", "resident troll", "unintelligent and illogical โtrue-believerโ", "only a retard, or someone lying, or someone a bit insane", "you retard!! [Holy moly!!๐คฆโโ๏ธ]", "you such an insane retard", "member from Moronia" are just of many examples of attacks on the person. For once been-there is correct, ad hominem is what a person uses when their arguments are otherwise failing. If he was confident in his evidenced case, he would not have to resort to name-calling and other forms of personal attack, such as refusing to use a requested pronoun.
rodoh.freeforums.net/thread/581/fake-historiography-relying-logical-fallacies?page=1&scrollTo=13828
The reply to that is simple. He is wrong. The history of the Holocaust relies on evidence from the normal sources of evidence used to determine all historical events, which are variously witnesses, documents, images, archaeology, physical items, forensics and circumstantial evidence. Historians do not need to argue there were mass gassings. Instead they use evidence to prove there were mass gassings.
It is Holocaust denial/revisionism that is a fake history relying on logical fallacies. Instead of producing an evidenced history of what happened to the Jews during WWII, using witnesses, documents etc, revisionists argue that mass gassings did not happen, based on the logical fallacy of argument from incredulity. They then incorrectly claim that being asked what happened instead, is reversing the burden of proof.
For example, to evidence mass gassings, historians use the testimony of witness A, who states he was at camp Z, and he had to work at its gas chambers. Revisionists, instead of using witness B, who also states he worked at camp Z, and he had to work at a place where instead of gassing, there were mass showers, argue that witness A is a liar, because he claims are physically impossible and too incredible to believe. Revisionists do that because there is no witness B. There is no evidence from any source of evidence, something other than gassings happened at camp Z.
Historians then go to use evidence from Nazi documents that hundreds of thousands arrived at camp Z and there are no corresponding documents of mass departures or arrivals at any other camp. Revisionists, instead of using Nazi documents that record mass departures or arrivals, as there are none, argue the documentary evidence of mass arrivals is either faked or misinterpreted. Revisionists are having to argue their version of history, rather than produce evidence to support it.
That is also the case with the archaeological evidence. Archaeologists use evidence from excavations at camp Z and various survey methods to trace large areas of disturbed ground containing cremated remains. Rather than produce evidence of large areas of undisturbed ground at camp Z, which would prove there could not have been mass graves, revisionists variously argue not enough of the ground is disturbed, or the archaeologists are being dishonest about their findings, or even that the Nazis could not have dug graves as described. Again, revisionists argue their version of history, rather than evidence it.
Not all of the revisionist arguments are logical fallacies. When they argue there is not enough disturbed ground at camp Z to contain the mass graves alleged, that is reasonable. But, they then fail to provide any evidence as to what the grave sizes actually were and how many did die at the camp, and instead, their argument consists of not being able to work out how hundreds of thousands could have been buried there and that witness claims are unbelievable, they have resorted to the argument from incredulity.
Historians use evidence to prove what happened. Revisionists use a methodology unique to them, that relies on logical fallacies, which cannot evidence and prove what did happen. Been-there has parroted an argument I have been making for some time now, and he tried to reverse it, suggesting historians use logical fallacies, instead of evidence. Clearly that is not true, as all the evidence he discusses, whether that is the witnesses he does not believe, documents, archaeology or whatever, has come from the historians.
It is also worth noting that been-there mentions "AD HOMINEM...i.) criticises and attacks the person making the argument, ii.) instead of criticising the actual argument being made; instead of attacking what that person is saying. The problem with that is he regularly uses that form of argument, as he avoids usernames and prefers to refer to his opponent as "a retard or a troll", "resident troll", "unintelligent and illogical โtrue-believerโ", "only a retard, or someone lying, or someone a bit insane", "you retard!! [Holy moly!!๐คฆโโ๏ธ]", "you such an insane retard", "member from Moronia" are just of many examples of attacks on the person. For once been-there is correct, ad hominem is what a person uses when their arguments are otherwise failing. If he was confident in his evidenced case, he would not have to resort to name-calling and other forms of personal attack, such as refusing to use a requested pronoun.
