Logical Fallacies [Remedial education for Nessie]

[Archie]

Again, that is the very thing you are supposed to be proving. You can't just assert it.

Let's say you want to convert someone to a religion and you say "This religion is true because this associated holy text is true." That might make sense to those who already believe, but it doesn't work for anyone who doesn't already agree with you. It assumes that the person already believes in the holy text. It's useless as an argument.

The circular nature of your arguments is one reason why you have had zero success in your decade long crusade against revisionism.

[Nessie]

Again, that is the very thing you are supposed to be proving. You can't just assert it.

You said, ""The Holocaust is evidenced to have happened" is a precisely what is being contested. You asserting that does not settle anything".

We have been here before, when I pointed out that you claim 100% of the witnesses to gassings lied, leaving you with zero witnesses who worked inside an AR camp, Chelmno or A-B Krema and you denied that, but then failed to say which witness you believed! Your assertion leaves us with no witnesses at all, to places that millions went to.

I can also point to all the archaeological surveys that find large areas of disturbed ground where witnesses state mass graves were exhumed and cremated remains were reburied. You cannot counter that with any evidence the ground is undisturbed. You think you can counter the archaeological evidence by asserting it does not show sufficient disturbed ground, without any corresponding evidence.

Then you fail to provide any evidence of mass transports back out of the camps and millions of Jews still alive in 1944. I am not just asserting I have evidence and you have no evidence, I am proving it.

It is you who asserts no gassings and resettlement happened, with no evidence to back you up. Your lack of evidence means you have to resort to coming up with excuses to dismiss all the evidence for gassings. It is a fact that the evidence is for gassings, with nothing for resettlement.

Let's say you want to convert someone to a religion and you say "This religion is true because this associated holy text is true." That might make sense to those who already believe, but it doesn't work for anyone who doesn't already agree with you. It assumes that the person already believes in the holy text. It's useless as an argument.

The circular nature of your arguments is one reason why you have had zero success in your decade long crusade against revisionism.

It is not clear how your attempt at an analogy is supposed to work. The history is true, because this associated document is true, makes sense, when it means that since the document has been verified and it is corroborated, then the history is true.
I know that you do not believe any of the evidence for gassings, and you never will, so it is again not clear what you are getting at. Your attempt to make out my arguments are circular is a fail. Rather than an odd analogy that does not work, why not quote me and show something that I have said is a circular argument. No more strawmen, where I have to correct your false interpretation of what I have said.

Did you really ask Chat GPT the question you quoted?
What did you edit out of its response?
Did you ask any other AI?

Then you said "I see you did not respond to the part from I quoted about your response be "very weak." but I did respond and gave you a link.

Could you answer my questions and acknowledge my response please.

[Nessie]

I see no more AI inspired responses from Archie, who is on full dodge mode by abandoning this debate.

It is a proven fact that revisionism is based on illogical arguments over the alleged implausibility of the witness claims.

[Archie]

I see no more AI inspired responses from Archie, who is on full dodge mode by abandoning this debate.

It is a proven fact that revisionism is based on illogical arguments over the alleged implausibility of the witness claims.

More like I lost interest since arguing with you is about as productive as talking to the wall.

Your interpretation of "argument from incredulity" is absurdly broad and leads to lots of false positives. You are wrong and you refuse to admit it. I'm not wasting any more time on this.

[Nessie]

I see no more AI inspired responses from Archie, who is on full dodge mode by abandoning this debate.

It is a proven fact that revisionism is based on illogical arguments over the alleged implausibility of the witness claims.

More like I lost interest since arguing with you is about as productive as talking to the wall.

Your interpretation of "argument from incredulity" is absurdly broad and leads to lots of false positives. You are wrong and you refuse to admit it. I'm not wasting any more time on this.

You tried to use AI, to prove I was wrong, and suspiciously found one result that seemed to suggest I was wrong. I tested your result with multiple AI's and found they all agreed I was correct, and you were wrong. Why should I accept I am wrong, when all the AI results show I am correct?

You are that reliant on the logically flawed arguments from incredulity and ignorance, that you will continue to use them! I will continue to remind you that AI proved you were wrong.

[Archie]

Try giving it a bunch of different examples not directly related to the holohoax. For me, GPT is consistently able to distinguish correctly between reasoned skepticism and arbitrary unsupported incredulity. You are not able to make this distinction.

[Nessie]

Try giving it a bunch of different examples not directly related to the holohoax. For me, GPT is consistently able to distinguish correctly between reasoned skepticism and arbitrary unsupported incredulity. You are not able to make this distinction.

In Rudolf's case, AI determined that he was using incredulity. That is because of the volume of evidence and expert opinion which contradicts his chemical finding. AI is reasoning that it is far more likely there is an error in one person's calculations, minimal experimentation and conclusion, than there is with all the evidence and other expert opinion. AI thinks to a logical, final conclusion, which is mass gassings did take place, despite Rudolf's inability to work out how. You do not. You conclude that Rudolf must be correct, and all the contradictory evidence is lies or faulty, and expert opinion is wrong. But you leave it at that, with no conclusion as to what did happen.

Any rational sceptic will agree with AI, because of the evidence which favours one side over the other, the likelihood of which side is correct and since only side reaches a final conclusion. You merely assert that I am unable to make a distinction, whereas I can explain where you have gone wrong.

[Nessie]

In this thread, I said;

viewtopic.php?p=7340#p7340

It is not valid when those people then declare, what they think is preposterous, did not happen.

HansHill asked;

Why?

The answer is explained here;

AI overview.
"An "argument from incredulity," also known as an "argument from personal incredulity," is a logical fallacy that asserts a proposition is false simply because it is difficult to imagine, understand, or believe, rather than offering any real evidence against it."

Revisionists cannot get their heads around how it was possible to gas so many people, in gas chambers at various camps, as described by witnesses. They declare the witnesses to be preposterous and the evidence lacking. They cannot offer any contemporaneous evidence against gassings, such as an eyewitness who worked at an AR camp, who states that gassings did not happen and what did. Or documents recording mass transports back out of those camps, which would disprove the mass killing claims.

AI goes on;

Here's a more detailed explanation:
The Fallacy:
The core of the fallacy lies in assuming that something is untrue simply because it is hard to comprehend or contradicts personal beliefs or expectations.

Examples:
"I can't imagine how evolution could work, so it must be false."
"I don't understand how a computer can do all those things, so it's probably magic."
"It's difficult to fathom how mechanisms like mutation could produce complex new structures.

I would add the example of "I cannot work out how mass gassings happened based on the witness descriptions, as some witnesses describe far too many people fitting inside a chamber, the gassings taking too little time, that a witness said diesel was used which would not work, there is insufficient ventilation or a lack of staining in the walls from Zyklon B"

AI explains;

Why it's a fallacy:
Lack of Evidence: The argument relies on a personal inability to understand or believe something, rather than presenting any logical or empirical evidence to support the claim that the proposition is false.

Personal Bias: It can reflect a bias or a closed-mindedness towards alternative perspectives or explanations.

Unproven assumption: The argument assumes that because someone cannot understand something, it must be false, which is not a logical conclusion.

Revisionists try to present evidence why the proposition is false, such as a certain amount of people cannot fit inside a chamber. But that fails to take into account people are poor at estimating the size of crowds, so they likely overestimated how many people fitted inside the chamber. Another example, is the coke needed to cremate so many people. Revisionists cannot work out how so many corpses were cremated, apparently with so little coke. That is an opinion, rather than evidence, as the claim is not based on any experimentation. It is theory only and it fails to take into account German engineer descriptions of how the ovens workd.

Revisionists are very biased, they do not want to accept mass gassings and cremations happened, for various agenda driven reasons.

They conclude that because they cannot work out how the gas chambers, pyres and ovens could have functioned, therefore they cannot have. The conclusion does not follow the premise.

[HansHill]

Thanks for sticking to your containment thread. Now, how do i know you didn't read and / or understand the OP in that thread you linked?

Because you didn't realise he wasn't debating the details or the arguments for or against the gas chambers, as indicated here:

...before even starting to look at specific evidence (Or lack thereof)

and

While debunking the details of the alleged gassings is certainly very laudable, unfortunately revisionists usually forget to point out how preposterous and absurd the concept is in principle.

That means, he's not addressing the arguments of the purported method in and of themselves, he's addressing at a macro level how stupid, preposterous, and silly it is. Therefore, this is not the argument from incredulity, because he hasn't even made those arguments (yet).

And yes, I know you likely can't tell the difference, but we all can.

[Nessie]

Thanks for sticking to your containment thread. Now, how do i know you didn't read and / or understand the OP in that thread you linked?

Because you didn't realise he wasn't debating the details or the arguments for or against the gas chambers, as indicated here:

...before even starting to look at specific evidence (Or lack thereof)

and

While debunking the details of the alleged gassings is certainly very laudable, unfortunately revisionists usually forget to point out how preposterous and absurd the concept is in principle.

That means, he's not addressing the arguments of the purported method in and of themselves, he's addressing at a macro level how stupid, preposterous, and silly it is. Therefore, this is not the argument from incredulity, because he hasn't even made those arguments (yet).

And yes, I know you likely can't tell the difference, but we all can.

He is denying there were gassings, claiming there is a lack of evidence (not true), which is not the argument from incredulity and that gassing is debunked, due preposterousness and absurdity, which is the argument from incredulity.

[Archie]

Cross-posting this beauty of a post here.

Yet you are the same person who said:

I thought it was clear, what I was saying. I know that Green rebuts Rudolf, because of the evidence that homicidal gassings happened. I cannot make it any clearer or succinct than that. If you still do not understand, then I cannot help you, due to your inability to get to grips with evidencing.

Nessie: Green rebuts Rudolf
HH: Why does Green rebut Rudolf?
Nessie: Because the gassings took place

Seems it's actually you who chooses to seek convergence when it suits, and when it doesn't, to offer tripe like the above.

The offered tripe, is yours. The actual argument I make, which you are unable to counter, so you make up tripe, is;

Nessie: Green rebuts Rudolf
HH: Why does Green rebut Rudolf?
Nessie: Because the convergence of corroborating evidence proves the gassings took place, so Green must be correct.

[HansHill]

Cross-posting this beauty of a post here.

Yet you are the same person who said:



Nessie: Green rebuts Rudolf
HH: Why does Green rebut Rudolf?
Nessie: Because the gassings took place

Seems it's actually you who chooses to seek convergence when it suits, and when it doesn't, to offer tripe like the above.

Hall of famer right there. So darn proud to be right in the center of it!

[Nessie]

I take it you both think my argument is logically flawed? Can you say why?

[HansHill]

I take it you both think my argument is logically flawed? Can you say why?

Your friend Dr Patru already explained it to you - it begs the question.

[Nessie]

I take it you both think my argument is logically flawed? Can you say why?

Your friend Dr Patru already explained it to you - it begs the question.

He said

I mean, I’d say that he’s not wrong, although the argument begs the question.

I am not wrong. Regarding supposedly begging the question, Dr Patru failed to explain why.

AI Overview
"Begging the question," in a formal logical sense, means an argument that assumes the truth of its conclusion as a premise, thus failing to provide actual evidence or justification for the conclusion.

I have not assumed the truth of the conclusion and I have not failed to provide actual evidence. You admit that;

Nessie: I believe Dr Green rebuts Rudolf
HH: Why do you believe this?
Nessie: Because of the evidence of gassings

Rudolf is wrong to say no gassings took place, because there is evidence that gassings took place. My conclusion is based on the evidence.

If engineer A states that it was physically impossible for the Nazis to fire a rocket from northern France to London in 1944 and engineer B states that it was physically possible, how would you determine which theory is correct? Would it not be reasonable to look for evidence of rockets being fired and if evidence is found, conclude engineer B is correct and engineer A was wrong?