Logical Fallacies [Remedial education for Nessie]

Do you have a hot take on the Peloponnesian War? Do share.
User avatar
Archie
Site Admin
Posts: 208
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2024 6:54 am

Re: Logical Fallacies [Remedial education for Nessie]

Post by Archie »

Nessie wrote: Thu Nov 21, 2024 4:14 pm I appreciate that difference and then explain why revisionism;

1 - is not informed analysis. It is the opinion of people with little to no relevant training or expertise in history, criminal investigations or archaeology. It is a series of assertions and arguments that are logically flawed.

2 - they are often not using contemporaneous evidence from the places under discussion, instead, they try to reinterpret the evidence for gassings, or declare witnesses to be lying, or documents forged. They introduce no evidence to support alternative narratives, such as a witness or document that evidences regular mass transports back out of the AR camps.

3 - the data they use is, like statistics, crafted to achieve the desired outcome. It is data that is guess work and estimations, based on limited information, with no experimentation.

You think you have supported your incredulity, but you have failed.
You cannot assume ex ante that our analysis is incorrect, which is exactly what you are doing when you dismiss our arguments as an incredulity fallacy, based on your misunderstanding of logic.

By the way, the bolded part is an example of a real fallacy. Textbook appeal to authority. It's also a false premise since many revisionists do have relevant credentials.
Q: Suppose someone presents a long , detailed argument for X and someone responds and says that they are wrong because they do not have sufficient credentials to speak on the topic. Is that a fallacy of some sort or is that a good response?

A: Dismissing someone's argument solely because they lack credentials is generally considered a fallacious response, specifically an ad hominem fallacy or, more precisely, a variant called the circumstantial ad hominem or fallacious appeal to authority.
User avatar
Hektor
Posts: 22
Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2024 6:58 pm

Re: Logical Fallacies [Remedial education for Nessie]

Post by Hektor »

Archie wrote: Fri Nov 22, 2024 1:07 am "Is this an argument from incredulity fallacy?"

AI: "No. It's only a fallacy if you don't provide any reasons for your incredulity."

Nessie: "Well, any reasons offered by revisionists automatically don't count bc I say so. So it's a fallacy."

:roll:
The pesky thing with fallacies is that many of them look pretty much like a plausible form form of reasoning. And that can get into joker arguments as well. Meaning to accuse the other side of logical fallacies to distract from the fact that you actually don't have a case. The Holocaust Lobby did pull virtually every lever in terms of talking points and rhetorical trickery since its inception. And meanwhile we get plenty of people that try to copy this behavior. And well, it helps them in their careers.


Hektor wrote: Thu Nov 21, 2024 7:34 pm
Archie wrote: Thu Nov 21, 2024 2:04 pm....
You cannot settle any sort of serious debate by citing basic fallacies. It will come down to the actual substance of the arguments and evidence. Spamming fallacies is similar in effect to ad hominem attacks. What happens if both sides start doing it?

"You're doing fallacies." "No, you're doing fallacies."

There is a point where this is effectively not much different that people calling each other idiots/liars.
Nessie got a Bot-like way of 'arguing'.... It works with a very flexible logic and by that method you can prove virtually everything, meaning that it can't prove anything at all, since it lacks discriminating properties.
Post Reply