Logical Fallacies [Remedial education for Nessie]

[Archie]

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.

[Hektor]

"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."

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.

....
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.

Endless extension of the debate without coming to any point i also what's done there. They can't proof their case, because it simply isn't true. But what they can do is overloading the information channels so people can't see it and at least remain 'undecided'. That's also what was behind the mud campaigns against Revisionists. Simply drag the issue onto circumstantial and irrelevant stuff. Do everything as long as it can't really settle the issue.

[Nessie]

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.

AI is quite clear, being incredulous is fine, but it then becomes a fallacy dependent on evaluation;

"In short, skepticism about implausible claims isn't inherently fallacious. The key is whether disbelief is grounded in critical evaluation of the evidence, not just in a gut reaction of "I can't believe it."

Revisionists display that gut reaction and they do not do a competent critical evaluation. When they do try to evidence what really happened, they are all over the place and it is clear they do not know what they are doing, as they fail to evidence their various, competing claims. The revisionist history of the Jews under Nazi occupation does not even come to an evidenced conclusion. When they do try to apply some "science" such as how many corpses fit into a space, they fail to take into account issues such as clothing, or lack thereof, the use of corrosive substances, decomposition under pressure and that cremations started when people were still arriving at the camps. What they produce is uneducated guesswork, designed to prop up their beliefs.

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.

It is not a direct appeal to authority to say that a trained, experienced historian, archaeologist or criminal investigator is likely to do a better job than someone with no training or experience. An appeal to authority would be for me to say they will be correct in their analysis and results.

What revisionists have those credentials? Scott has a history degree. Irving as well, but he is not even a revisionist now. There are no archaeologists or criminal investigators, or indeed, forensic scientists.

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.

Revisionist lack of training and inexperience, means they are more likely to be wrong, than someone with relevant training and experience. That is a fact which applies to all forms of work and expertise. I do not dismiss revisionists due to their lack of training. I see that lack of training as an explanation as to why their assessments of the evidence are wrong and why they have fallen for the denial hoax.

Revisionists fail to take into account that they are more likely to make mistakes as they do not self assess and check their claims. An example of that is revisionists spend the vast majority of their time assessing the possibility of gassings and little to no time assessing the possibility of the hoax they allege and that millions of Jews were not gassed and instead were in Nazi custody in 1944 and liberated in 1945. Another is that revisionists fail to take into account the scientific studies of witnesses, their memory and recollection and claim lies, when mistakes are far more likely.