Falsification

[Monsieur Sceptique]

This thread is about falsification and I did not provide links to the archaeological surveys for that to be the topic under discussion. I have pointed out how archaeology can falsify both claims that there are and there are no mass graves. Evidence gathering is neutral in that respect. However, the results can be inconclusive, to some. Revisionists do accept there were burials, but not that there were hundreds of thousands buried.

My apologies, that was a knee-jerk reaction. To answer your question, I would define falsification as altering the substance of something with the aim of deceiving. For example, for anti-revisionists, revisionists falsify history by changing it to fit their worldview. For me, falsification can be presenting things in a biased way in order to give them a meaning that they did not have. But it can also be the act of directly creating a forgery, i.e. fabricating evidence from scratch or altering something real and adding information that was not there from the outset in order to serve a particular purpose. For me, falsification necessarily follows an objective (for example, creating or altering a will in the Middle Ages in order for a nobleman to claim a particular property or inheritance). For medieval historians, the first thing to do is to determine whether the document may be false and therefore subject it to internal and external criticism.

[Monsieur Sceptique]

'I didn't provide this for you to look at it and check source, I wanted to use it to falsify my opponents position'



I have, no words.

I did provide it for MS to look at and check. I just pointed out that for him to post about the specific archaeological finds is off topic, as the thread is about falsification. If the archaeology found no evidence of disturbed ground and buried remains, then a witness claim of mass graves is proved to be false. If they had found huge mass graves, containing corpses that could be counted, then the witness would be verified.

The mass graves at Katyn verified witness claims about mass murder there. If the Soviets had exhumed the corpses, cremated them and then mixed those cremains back into the ground, so preventing body counts, identification and cause of death, it would be easier to dispute any claims made.

In fact, it could be considered falsification if I told you that the French government killed 10 million people and buried them in this place, and then I searched the place and found 1,000 people. that is already falsification, because I have gone from something true (‘the French government killed people and buried them there’) to something false (‘the French government killed 10 million people’) and I have deliberately falsified the number by exaggerating it. The media are very good at falsifying information, for example by creating false evidence or exaggerating crimes according to their political leanings.

[HansHill]

I think we are losing focus here. Falsification is one thing, and one thing only.

It is the process of testing claims against a set criteria. A claim is only falsifiable if it can be tested against some determinable outcome. It seems the root word "false" is confusing matters. It has nothing got to do with being incorrect, or proven wrong, or inaccurate.

Falsifiable claim: The water is 30 degrees Celsius
Unfalsifiable claim: The water feels warm

Both claims can be true simultaneously but it doesn't change the concept of falsifiability inherent in the statement(s). It's about testing rigour.

[Callafangers]

I think we are losing focus here. Falsification is one thing, and one thing only.

It is the process of testing claims against a set criteria. A claim is only falsifiable if it can be tested against some determinable outcome. It seems the root word "false" is confusing matters. It has nothing got to do with being incorrect, or proven wrong, or inaccurate.

Falsifiable claim: The water is 30 degrees Celsius
Unfalsifiable claim: The water feels warm

Both claims can be true simultaneously but it doesn't change the concept of falsifiability inherent in the statement(s). It's about testing rigour.

Gracias, I have had much trouble explaining this. You've captured it well.

[Monsieur Sceptique]

I think we are losing focus here. Falsification is one thing, and one thing only.

It is the process of testing claims against a set criteria. A claim is only falsifiable if it can be tested against some determinable outcome. It seems the root word "false" is confusing matters. It has nothing got to do with being incorrect, or proven wrong, or inaccurate.

Falsifiable claim: The water is 30 degrees Celsius
Unfalsifiable claim: The water feels warm

Both claims can be true simultaneously but it doesn't change the concept of falsifiability inherent in the statement(s). It's about testing rigour.

I understand sorry my bad.
In fact, the term falsification is a french term (yes once again) it's come from the latin word falsifico (to make false). In french, the word falsification is Is to change the substance of some, to alter it. In english you call it a forgery. But it's seems you have another meaning we don't have in French. The term falsifiability you use is for us Réfutabilité (the possibility to prove it wrong) so it's seem i misundestood it

[Nessie]

'I didn't provide this for you to look at it and check source, I wanted to use it to falsify my opponents position'



I have, no words.

I did provide it for MS to look at and check. I just pointed out that for him to post about the specific archaeological finds is off topic, as the thread is about falsification. If the archaeology found no evidence of disturbed ground and buried remains, then a witness claim of mass graves is proved to be false. If they had found huge mass graves, containing corpses that could be counted, then the witness would be verified.

The mass graves at Katyn verified witness claims about mass murder there. If the Soviets had exhumed the corpses, cremated them and then mixed those cremains back into the ground, so preventing body counts, identification and cause of death, it would be easier to dispute any claims made.

In fact, it could be considered falsification if I told you that the French government killed 10 million people and buried them in this place, and then I searched the place and found 1,000 people. that is already falsification, because I have gone from something true (‘the French government killed people and buried them there’) to something false (‘the French government killed 10 million people’) and I have deliberately falsified the number by exaggerating it. The media are very good at falsifying information, for example by creating false evidence or exaggerating crimes according to their political leanings.

That is a very good example of how mass graves are falsifiable and so Popper's principle applies and how they would be falsified. What the Soviets did at Katyn compared to what the Nazis did at the AR camps, are examples of how, whilst mass graves are clearly falsifiable, in practice, when evidence is tampered with to hide a criminal act, verifying the existence of mass graves is not so simple.

[Nessie]

I think we are losing focus here. Falsification is one thing, and one thing only.

It is the process of testing claims against a set criteria. A claim is only falsifiable if it can be tested against some determinable outcome. It seems the root word "false" is confusing matters. It has nothing got to do with being incorrect, or proven wrong, or inaccurate.

Falsifiable claim: The water is 30 degrees Celsius
Unfalsifiable claim: The water feels warm

Both claims can be true simultaneously but it doesn't change the concept of falsifiability inherent in the statement(s). It's about testing rigour.

I understand sorry my bad.
In fact, the term falsification is a french term (yes once again) it's come from the latin word falsifico (to make false). In french, the word falsification is Is to change the substance of some, to alter it. In english you call it a forgery. But it's seems you have another meaning we don't have in French. The term falsifiability you use is for us Réfutabilité (the possibility to prove it wrong) so it's seem i misundestood it

Certain people are arguing that much of the Holocaust is not falsifiable, as it cannot be subjected to rigorous testing with a determinable outcome, so the Holocaust narrative is weakened. It is another argument to prop up their desire to disbelieve certain events during the Holocaust, such as the mass graves.

I say we need to look at why certain claims are supposedly not falsifiable and mass graves is a good example. The Soviets did nothing, beyond burying the corpses, to hide the mass murder of Poles at Katyn. The Nazis, accused of mass murder at the AR camps, subjected those camps to a unique treatment, leaving them with large areas of disturbed ground, buried cremated remains, which was planted over and the majority of buildings demolished. Some buildings were left, so the camps could still be guarded.

The Nazis knew that a mass grave, in its normal state, is eminently falsifiable. So they made that much harder to do. It is universal within any criminal justice system, to regard tampering with, hiding or destroying evidence as a criminal act and the act of criminals.