Re: Logical Fallacies [Remedial education for Nessie]
Posted: Fri Nov 22, 2024 1:25 am
You cannot assume ex ante that our analysis is incorrect, which is exactly what you are doing when you dismiss our arguments as an incredulity fallacy, based on your misunderstanding of logic.Nessie wrote: ↑Thu Nov 21, 2024 4:14 pm I appreciate that difference and then explain why revisionism;
1 - is not informed analysis. It is the opinion of people with little to no relevant training or expertise in history, criminal investigations or archaeology. It is a series of assertions and arguments that are logically flawed.
2 - they are often not using contemporaneous evidence from the places under discussion, instead, they try to reinterpret the evidence for gassings, or declare witnesses to be lying, or documents forged. They introduce no evidence to support alternative narratives, such as a witness or document that evidences regular mass transports back out of the AR camps.
3 - the data they use is, like statistics, crafted to achieve the desired outcome. It is data that is guess work and estimations, based on limited information, with no experimentation.
You think you have supported your incredulity, but you have failed.
By the way, the bolded part is an example of a real fallacy. Textbook appeal to authority. It's also a false premise since many revisionists do have relevant credentials.
Q: Suppose someone presents a long , detailed argument for X and someone responds and says that they are wrong because they do not have sufficient credentials to speak on the topic. Is that a fallacy of some sort or is that a good response?
A: Dismissing someone's argument solely because they lack credentials is generally considered a fallacious response, specifically an ad hominem fallacy or, more precisely, a variant called the circumstantial ad hominem or fallacious appeal to authority.
