Archie wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2024 3:42 pm
Nessie wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2024 8:04 am
curioussoul wrote: ↑Sat Nov 02, 2024 8:14 pm
There is no evidence of your supposed credentials. You would have to cite actual literature on the subjects of historiographic research and witness testimony in order to prove your point.
I do. When revisionists use logical fallacies in their supposed research, I point them out and I link to evidence about witnesses, such as recently with Archie about interview mirroring.
You have no clue at all about logic. I can tell....
That is a big part of your problem. You rely far too much on your opinion and instinct, rather than evidencing.
... just from the way you form your thoughts that you don't have a background in mathematics, philosophy, computer science, or anything like that.
A year long course at university in moral and religious philosophy.
Your understanding of "logic" is nothing more than a very select few fallacies (always the same ones) that you heard somewhere which you repeat ad nauseum,
It is revisionists who repeatedly use the same logically flawed arguments, ad nauseam.
... and which you apply incorrectly more often than not.
Any specific examples?
Your interpretation of "argument from incredulity" is absurdly broad and objectively wrong.
Again, any specific examples? At the moment, joshk246 is using that fallacy in his argument about wood at the AR camps. "The cremation methods and materials used(old train tracks) sound absolutely ridiculous anyway, but no presence of huge containers of wood and no massive storage area really seals the deal."
You think pointing out contradictions is "incredulity" fallacy.
Any example, or are you just going to make unevidenced assertions?
You think looking at relevant data and doing math is "incredulity" fallacy. That's beyond ridiculous.
It is the fallacy of incredulity, when the maths is now many people fit into a space and the argument is that a witness has made a ridiculous claim as to the numbers, therefore they lied. Multiple studies find that people are not good at estimating the size of crowds, so the witness merely over-estimated how many people fit inside a gas chamber.
Seriously, go email a philosophy professor an example of a revisionist style argument (with the context changed so as not to bias things) and ask them if they're "arguments from incredulity." See what they say. Revisionist style arguments are used ALL THE TIME in countless contexts.
Again, any example of a revisionist style argument being used elsewhere?
Your understanding of how to analyze testimony is also hopelessly inept as is your shallow use of academic citations. I can tell you are literally just looking for papers on Google which you haven't even read. You do not follow any of that literature. And usually you are making some utterly trivial point that everyone is already aware of. "Witnesses are often inaccurate with dates, distances, etc" Yes, everyone already knows this.
So why do revisionists use those mistakes to claim they prove the witnesses lied?
But what you do is you take a trivial observation like that and then try to use it as an excuse to overlook ANY blunder no matter how huge.
Again, any specific example?
The allowances you make for these witnesses are so generous that it would be impossible to discredit any witness ever under your rules.
A recent example of your "expert" skills at witness critique
viewtopic.php?t=69
I easily explained why Vrba got the date and who was visiting wrong. He admitted he was wrong! Being wrong does not make him a liar. Admitting he was wrong, improves his credibility.
Regarding your "mirroring" thing, that is yet more incompetence on your part. The issue under discussion was whether investigators or interrogators influence witnesses. Prufer was cited as an example where his "confessions" use similar language as the Extraordinary State Commission and other Soviet propaganda. Your reply is that this is "normal."
Here's one of the papers you've linked on this (which you obviously had just googled and had not actually read). It clearly is saying that influencing the subject is a PROBLEM. It's something to be minimized to the extent possible. You say, "this is a normal phenomenon." Yes, it is, and it isn't considered to be a good thing. And keep in mind that this is talking about very subtle, unintentional influence. The Soviets were anything but subtle.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10 ... lCode=jaba
Interviewing is the most frequently used qualitative research method for gathering data. Although interviews vary across different epistemological perspectives, questions are central to all interviewing genres. This article focuses on the potential for the wording of interview questions to lead and unduly influence, or bias, the interviewee’s responses. This underacknowledged phenomenon affects the trustworthiness of findings and has implications for knowledge claims made by researchers, particularly in research that aims to elicit interviewees’ subjective experience. We highlight the problem of the influence of interview questions on data; provide a typology of how interview questions can lead responses; and present a method, the “cleanness rating,” that facilitates reflexivity by enabling researchers to review and assess the influence of their interview questions. This clarifies the researcher’s role in the production of interview data and contributes to methodological transparency.
This completely undermines the argument you were making and you didn't even notice, again, because you didn't look at it in any detail.
Mirroring is a problem, which I made clear when I said, "We were warned to look out for it in interview training, as it could create the impression undue influence had been applied to the interviewee." Of course, mirroring affects the trustworthiness of a claim. If Prufer's testimony was the only evidence, because he was interviewed by the Soviets and he is mirroring, then I would dismiss his evidence. The reason why I do not, is because his evidence is corroborated by other evidence from witnesses who worked inside the Kremas, documents and circumstantial evidence pertaining to their operation.
You try to use mirroring to dismiss Prufer because he says what you do not want to hear. You should follow the evidence, to ascertain if he is corroborated or not.