Archie wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2024 7:38 pm
Nessie wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2024 5:41 pm
A year long course at university in moral and religious philosophy.
So some verbal gen ed course, not formal logic. Right. And you think that's enough of a background in logic to talk down to everyone else like an arrogant ass?
What relevant qualifications do you have? Who are you to sit in judgement of all the historians, archaeologists, lawyers and journalists, with their relevant training and experience and announce they have all got it wrong? I leave the arrogance to you.
According to the guys on RODOH, you didn't spam fallacies initially. It's something you picked up later online, not at university.
I first posted on TSSF and very quickly started to point out the flaws in revisionist arguments. I did learn more about the logical fallacies that were being employed. What is wrong with self learning about a subject? You could do with some of that!
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."
In that thread, he is presenting more of an argument than just that. You have plucked one sentence and are getting exciting over the phrase "sounds absolutely ridiculous." Whenever a revisionist says something sounds/seems/looks etc or we say "I think" or we say something is unlikely etc you immediately jump to this being an incredulity fallacy when it is not.
What does joshk246 present to back up his incredulity? The answer is his asserted opinion and more argument, rather than evidence.
"X sounds ridiculous" - This is not a fallacy. It's not a complete argument one way or the other. And usually when people say things like this they don't intend it to be a standalone argument. It's just a statement.
"X is false because it sounds ridiculous" - As phrased you could call this a fallacy. I would simply call it an unsupported conclusion because there isn't really any explanation for why it's ridiculous/implausible.
Either way it is phrased, to assert something did not happen, because it sounds ridiculous, is an illogical argument.
"X is probably false because ... [data and reasoning]" This is fine. The support may or may not hold up, but you can't say this is INHERENTLY fallacious which is what you do.
That is not an illogical argument. The argument now stands or falls on the "data and reasoning" as you call it, but really you need evidence. When "data and reasoning" is just opinion and more argument, then the argument is illogical. Where revisionists fail, is their lack of evidence. When revisionists have tried to evidence what happened, they split into competing theories, such as the AR camps were property sorting centres, customs/border camps, transit camps or hygiene stations. None of those theories have supporting evidence, primarily there is no witness to any of it. Despite millions of people entering into those camps, revisionists cannot find a single person who speaks to a process that did not involve gassings.
Josh made the point that there's no sign of enormous storage facilities for wood. That's a perfectly valid point and if you want to counter it you need to eg produce an air photo showing all the wood or giving your explanation for why it's not there. To dismiss valid points and evidence because "incredulity fallacy" is unacceptable and if you keep doing it your posting privileges will be restricted.
Joshk246 needs evidence, not just a point, not matter how valid or not that point is. Arguing from only a point, with no evidence, is the argument from incredulity. I don't need to counter his point with evidence, that is you reversing the burden of proof. It is up to him to evidence that there was no wood storage at the camp and that the mass pyres did not happen.
I have provided evidence that staff at Sobibor used local Polish sawmills to provide suitable wood for camp construction. It stands to reason that they could also supply suitable wood for pyres, wood was a major source of fuel, what with Poland being covered in huge forests. That we do not know anything about how the delivered wood was strored, is not a matter of incredulity, it is just something that there is no evidence about.
A reminder from the rules:
Observe the principle of charity. "In philosophy and rhetoric, the principle of charity or charitable interpretation requires interpreting a speaker's statements in the most rational way possible and, in the case of any argument, considering its best, strongest possible interpretation. In its narrowest sense, the goal of this methodological principle is to avoid attributing irrationality, logical fallacies, or falsehoods to the others' statements, when a coherent, rational interpretation of the statements is available." ("Principle of charity," Wikipedia)
Shape up if you want to keep posting here.
That is a warning to not use the strawman logical fallacy, something revisionists should learn from. As for your next point, it is fine to be suspicious. What is important is what is done with that suspicion. That is where revisionists fail.
Again, any example of a revisionist style argument being used elsewhere?
I have given you several before.
The Rolling Stone UVA rape hoax
Many people identified it as a hoax immediately based primarily on internal contradictions in the text, common sense, etc. As I recall your explanation was that what they did
was(!) "fallacy of incredulity" they merely "got lucky."
You thought they should have waited around for the authorities to tell them it was a hoax (also your position with the Holocaust).
https://rodoh.info/thread/679/case-stud ... stone-hoax
There was a lack of evidence that a rape had taken place and the accuser's testimony was inconsistent. That often happens with rape accusations. That one gained iconic hoax status because of The Rolling Stone involvement. The lack of evidence a rape took place makes that incomparable with mass gassings, for which there is a lot of evidence.
Holocaust denial is the equivalent of a group of people who deny that there was a rape, when the students admit that the rape happened, there is physical evidence it happened and there is evidence the students tried to destroy evidence and hide their actions.
The Cerro Torre-Cesare Maestri controversy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerro_Torre
Many mountaineers have long said that Maestri did not actually summit Cerro Torre in 1959 as he claimed. There has been controversy over this. Only in the 21st century does it now seem more or less commonly accepted that the Maestri's claim was bogus. If you read the arguments debunking Maestri, they argue for example 1) his account of the climb has inconsistencies, in particular, he described certain stretches as hard or easy but later climbers found the exact opposite, suggesting he was guessing. 2) Arguments about his implied speeds etc being implausible. 3) Lack of physical evidence like climbing gear above a certain point on the route. These are "revisionist style" arguments which are the same arguments everyone uses when they debunk something. For this one as I recall, you admitted to me that these were "incredulity" arguments but you said it was okay because the mountaineers are experts but revisionists aren't (a real example of a fallacy
)
The mountaineers did what revisionists have failed to do. They went and gathered evidence. They found no climbing equipment above a certain point and the climb did not match the witness description. That is corroborating evidence to prove the climb did not take place. Revisionists have failed to produce evidence from the AR camps, or A-B Kremas, to disprove gassings. No witnesses, documents, anything. As I said above, when they theorise, they come up with contradictory alternative events, none of which can be evidenced to have taken place.
You say "same arguments everyone uses when they debunk something" but people who know what they are doing, such as the climbers, use evidence, not argument.
Santa Claus Present Delivery Speed
The argument that Santa can't be real because it's impossible to deliver that many presents in one night is the exact same type of argument revisionists make all the time. It's not a fallacy. It's a good, rational argument. When I asked you if that Santa argument was an "argument from incredulity" as I recall you dodged the question and said it was different because the numbers for Santa are even more outlandish than the Holocaust numbers (not sure how you'd even know since you refuse to consider calculations to begin with). So then it seems you position is that it's okay do an incredulity fallacy on Santa as long as it's something totally impossible. But if there is any remote possibility at all, like 1 in a billion, then we are committing a fallacy. In reality, lots and lots of arguments rely on showing merely that things are wildly improbable or would require amazing coincidences.
The Santa comparison is a false analogy, another logical fallacy. Santa is undoubtedly physically impossible. Germans converting a room with gas tight doors, a ventilation system, some holes in the roof and a mesh insertion device are working well within what is physically impossible. Germans designing and building a gas chambers out of bricks, concrete, wood, tiles, pipes, valves and an engine is not 1 in a billion. Just because you do not believe that could happen, does not therefore mean it did not happen.
As for the other examples you asked for, it's bad enough I have to read your current posts. I'm not going through your post history looking for examples of every sort of nonsense that you spout. I gave my opinion of your posting. Others are free to draw their own conclusions. (Based on conversions I've had, people mostly seem to agree with me, on both sides.)
Your opinion, or mine is not important. What is important is what is evidenced to have happened. You are clearly led by opinion and argument, as I keep on having to point out to you that you need evidence.
