Kuhn, who was Jewish was also influenced by Ludwik Fleck in his thinking. Fleck developed the idea of thought collectives. Meaning that there are social networks in academia that entertain similar thoughts or belief systems. This can also lead to fallacious reasoning. Ludwig Fleck was a concentration camp inmate who also researched on Typhus and its prevention inside the concentration camps.Archie wrote: ↑Tue Aug 18, 2026 4:04 amGood idea. I probably should have included more "theory" in the OP. I'll add a link to your post. There's a lot of relevant literature in a number of fields.
A classic text would be Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Kuhn was a philosopher of science. The old quip "science advances one funeral at a time" captures the main idea. The ideal of science is steady progress based on dispassionate consideration of evidence. In practice, it seems there's a lot of friction due to big egos and other human factors. Major changes/advances require "paradigm shifts" which are difficult for people to accept. Kuhn was specifically interested in hard science, but the same principles apply even more strongly to more politically charged topics.
In psychology, there is a large literature on cognitive biases and related concepts.Social psychology considers is more focused on group interaction.
- Motivated reasoning
- Confirmation bias
- Belief perseverance
- Cognitive dissonance
- Overconfidence effect
Pluralistic ignorance - where an individual privately disbelieves something but publicly goes along with something because they assume (falsely) that everyone else believes
Sociological models of belief, as we would expect, focus on group dynamics. ...
The idea is however as old as the scientific method itself. Francis Bacon did already point to "idols of the mind" in his Novum Organon. They dictate the reasoning of those affected and lead to wrong conclusions all the time. It's always funny, when folks that claim to be enlightened, emancipated and rational fall for those idols and biases. And you can't win with them. They always find "reasons" for why they are right on a subject. I mean Holocaust Revisionists get those types of rhetorical devices posing as arguments thrown their way all the time. "Where did they go, if they weren't gassed?". "Do all witnesses lie?" - "Are you saying there is a grand conspiracy that decided to lie about concentration camps?".
Quite elaborate work all to sail around the evidence that should be there, if the Holocaust Narrative was true.