Comments on other threads.

[Nessie]

It is not an assertion.

It is. "The Earth is round" is an assertion.

No it is not. AI definition, my bold; "An assertion is a strong, confident statement or declaration that someone believes is true, often made without immediate proof or evidence". There is evidence to prove the earth is round and the Holocaust included mass murder in gas chambers. I evidence.

For example, witnesses at the AR camps state that bodies were exhumed from the mass graves and cremated. That matches the archaeological finds of areas of buried cremated remains.

The claim is ~1,500,000+ buried, disinterred, cremated, and reburied and, no, that has NEVER been demonstrated archaeologically. Not even close.

That is your opinion. I say it has been demonstrated and I can provide evidence to back that up, which you cannot. Evidence to back you would be GPR surveys of the parts of the camp witnesses claimed mass graves were located, that found little to no disturbed ground. You do not have that.

I can evidence hundreds of thousands buried and cremated, you cannot counter that with evidence of those people leaving the camp, negating the need for any mass graves.

You are wrong to claim that I have said that we can ignore what does not match, which is why you will never be able to link to and quote me saying such.

You have said this repeatedly. Here is you claiming Reder's OBVIOUSLY FALSE descriptions of the mass graves at Belzec are just fine because it's "normal" for witnesses to hallucinate images that aren't really there.

That Reder's recollection does not precisely match Kola's findings, and is exaggerated, is to be expected. Multiple studies of witness estimation of size and numbers prove that it is often poor. Revisionist attempts to discredit witnesses never take into account studies of memory and recall.

viewtopic.php?p=19827&#p19827

And here is you outrageously defending Vrba's fabricated story about Himmler visiting the camp to observe the inauguration of the Birkenau crematoria. You argued that if we can just sweep the errors under the rug and declare the rest of it to be "corroborated." Vrba dedicates multiple pages of elaborate description to an event that we know for a fact DID NOT HAPPEN.

"You have not dealt with corroboration. You have merely shown that he got dates wrong. On the events he is relating, he is corroborated."

viewtopic.php?t=69

You have confirmed that I have never said those witnesses should be ignored. Instead, I have done exactly what I explained to you when I said "you are unable to counter that I can provide explanations when witnesses say things that do not match. Those explanations are based on studies of witnesses and their memory, recollection and estimations."

I do not "sweep the errors under the rug". Instead, I explain them, based on the studies of witnesses you ignore, such as making mistakes with dates and the number of graves, due to memory issues.

You have gone on to ignore my point that there is not one single witness who describes a different process for prisoners brought to the death camps.

[Archie]

No it is not. AI definition, my bold; "An assertion is a strong, confident statement or declaration that someone believes is true, often made without immediate proof or evidence". There is evidence to prove the earth is round and the Holocaust included mass murder in gas chambers. I evidence.

Nope.

"Often" in the sense that colloquially there is often but not always an implication that the claim is unsupported, but the term is not categorically defined by the degree of support. In other words, in common speech, "assertion" may be used as shorthand for "mere assertion" or "unsupported assertion," but that is only a subcategory of assertions.

I asked the AI directly whether "The Earth is round" is an assertion and it answered me correctly.

Q: Is the sentence "The Earth is round" an assertion?

Yes. "The Earth is round" is an assertion.

An assertion is a declarative statement that claims something is true or false. The sentence "The Earth is round" makes a claim about the Earth and can be evaluated for truth, so it qualifies as an assertion.

For comparison:

Y - Assertion: "The Earth is round."
N - Question: "Is the Earth round?"
N - Command: "Believe that the Earth is round."
N - Exclamation: "What a round Earth!"

So, grammatically and philosophically, "The Earth is round" is an assertion because it states a proposition that can be true or false.

Q: In this case, I think it would be fair to say that it is a well-supported assertion. If there is a lot of support for the claim does it cease to be an assertion?

A: No. In most philosophical and logical usages, the degree of support for a claim is independent of whether it is an assertion.

An assertion is an act of putting forward a proposition as true. Whether the proposition is:

poorly supported,
moderately supported,
overwhelmingly supported, or
even known with near certainty,

it is still an assertion when someone states it.

For example:

"The Earth is round." → assertion, very well supported.
"The Earth orbits the Sun." → assertion, very well supported.
"There is life on Europa." → assertion, currently much less supported.

All three are assertions because they are statements offered as true.

Sometimes people use "assertion" colloquially to imply "a claim lacking evidence" or "just an unsupported statement." That's a common rhetorical use, but it differs from the technical meaning in logic and philosophy. In the technical sense, evidence does not change a proposition from being an assertion into something else.

You might say:

"The Earth is round" is an assertion, and a very well-supported one.

or

"The Earth is round" is an assertion whose truth is established by extensive evidence.

The support affects the justification of the assertion, not its status as an assertion.

It's amazing to me that you can't understand this. It seems you are unable reason abstractly. For you the word "assertion" has an negative connotation and therefore in your mind anything you think is true cannot be an "assertion."

[HansHill]

It's amazing to me that you can't understand this. It seems you are unable reason abstractly. For you the word "assertion" has an negative connotation and therefore in your mind anything you think is true cannot be an "assertion."

This is kinda like when he didn’t understand the concept of falsification. And because the first syllable contains “fals(e)” he just assumed falsification = le bad. There was a whole thread about it:

viewtopic.php?p=21456#p21456

Very childlike, very low IQ.

[Nessie]

No it is not. AI definition, my bold; "An assertion is a strong, confident statement or declaration that someone believes is true, often made without immediate proof or evidence". There is evidence to prove the earth is round and the Holocaust included mass murder in gas chambers. I evidence.

Nope.

"Often" in the sense that colloquially there is often but not always an implication that the claim is unsupported, but the term is not categorically defined by the degree of support. In other words, in common speech, "assertion" may be used as shorthand for "mere assertion" or "unsupported assertion," but that is only a subcategory of assertions.

I asked the AI directly whether "The Earth is round" is an assertion and it answered me correctly.

Q: Is the sentence "The Earth is round" an assertion?

Yes. "The Earth is round" is an assertion.

An assertion is a declarative statement that claims something is true or false. The sentence "The Earth is round" makes a claim about the Earth and can be evaluated for truth, so it qualifies as an assertion.

For comparison:

Y - Assertion: "The Earth is round."
N - Question: "Is the Earth round?"
N - Command: "Believe that the Earth is round."
N - Exclamation: "What a round Earth!"

So, grammatically and philosophically, "The Earth is round" is an assertion because it states a proposition that can be true or false.

Q: In this case, I think it would be fair to say that it is a well-supported assertion. If there is a lot of support for the claim does it cease to be an assertion?

A: No. In most philosophical and logical usages, the degree of support for a claim is independent of whether it is an assertion.

An assertion is an act of putting forward a proposition as true. Whether the proposition is:

poorly supported,
moderately supported,
overwhelmingly supported, or
even known with near certainty,

it is still an assertion when someone states it.

For example:

"The Earth is round." → assertion, very well supported.
"The Earth orbits the Sun." → assertion, very well supported.
"There is life on Europa." → assertion, currently much less supported.

All three are assertions because they are statements offered as true.

Sometimes people use "assertion" colloquially to imply "a claim lacking evidence" or "just an unsupported statement." That's a common rhetorical use, but it differs from the technical meaning in logic and philosophy. In the technical sense, evidence does not change a proposition from being an assertion into something else.

You might say:

"The Earth is round" is an assertion, and a very well-supported one.

or

"The Earth is round" is an assertion whose truth is established by extensive evidence.

The support affects the justification of the assertion, not its status as an assertion.

It's amazing to me that you can't understand this. It seems you are unable reason abstractly. For you the word "assertion" has an negative connotation and therefore in your mind anything you think is true cannot be an "assertion."

You used the word assertion, because of its association with a lack of evidence. You do that, to suggest I am the one who lacks evidence and you do that, to deflect from your complete lack of evidence.

You make all sorts of baseless accusations, such as ignoring what I do not ignore and sweeping errors under the rug, when instead I accept and explain them.

Then, you ignore my point that 100% of the witnesses who worked inside the death camps describe the same process, of mass arrivals, undressing, theft of the property, gassing and mass graves/cremations. That is a high level of consistency you cannot deal with. So, you ignore it and nit-pick over variances in details, such as how many were cremated each day, or the size of the graves, as if somehow, every witness should have said the same thing!

[Nessie]

It's amazing to me that you can't understand this. It seems you are unable reason abstractly. For you the word "assertion" has an negative connotation and therefore in your mind anything you think is true cannot be an "assertion."

This is kinda like when he didn’t understand the concept of falsification. And because the first syllable contains “fals(e)” he just assumed falsification = le bad. There was a whole thread about it:

viewtopic.php?p=21456#p21456

Very childlike, very low IQ.

I said "the empirical evidence at the camps matches witness descriptions of what took place".

Archie replied, "This is merely an assertion. The only support you have for this is more unsupported assertions."

He is using the word assertion, because of its definition, "An assertion is a strong, confident statement or declaration that someone believes is true, often made without immediate proof or evidence". The context is he is suggesting I lack evidence. He further clarifies that by claiming;

"When we point out all the things that DON'T match you say we can just ignore all the stuff that doesn't match."

I have challenged Archie on that, by pointing out 100% of the witness at the death camps describe the same process, or part of the overall process. I gave him examples of evidence to support the witnesses, such as buried cremated remains and the remains of buildings where they say gas chambers were located. I could have gone on and point to documents corroborating mass arrivals, or personal items and documents corroborating the theft of property.

Archie knows I am right, so he deflects with a lecture on the definitions of assertion. Your only contribution is to abuse and claim I did not understand falsification, by linking to a thread where I explain it and how it would work in the context of historical investigation.