Examples of the argument from incredulity.

[HansHill]

Ten paragraphs to repeat the same drivel over and over again. Insufferable.

Well since you asked, and to repeat this from a million other threads and places on this forum



Because under the conditions described its formation is expected

[Nessie]

Ten paragraphs to repeat the same drivel over and over again. Insufferable.

You keep on avoiding answering the questions.

Well since you asked, and to repeat this from a million other threads and places on this forum

Because under the conditions described its formation is expected

You have again avoided answering. Instead, you just repeat the reason for your incredulity. The issue is that your incredulity is the basis that you use for an argument that you cannot justify, logically or evidentially.

How is your belief that PB and high HCN residues would be present, if gassings had happened as described by witnesses and since PB is not apparently present and the HCN residue is low, that is evidence to prove that there were no gassings?

I do not think you are capable of logical thought, so you can answer that or any of my other questions.

[Nessie]

Stubble, again!

viewtopic.php?p=22225#p22225

In Hungary for example, there were facilities to gas entire trains with Zyklon. During the Hungarian Aktion, why bother with Auschwitz? Just Bivy the jews some distance from the train fumigation chamber, bring the train in and load it up, and gas them along with the fruit and veg. Use these magic pyres that run on a couple of twigs and a newspaper, and let the bodies self immolate on bbq grilles.

"AI Overview
The argument from incredulity, or appeal to personal incredulity, is an informal logical fallacy asserting that a proposition is false simply because it is difficult to imagine, understand, or believe. It wrongly assumes that one's personal inability to grasp a concept makes it untrue, often replacing evidence with subjective disbelief."

Stubble cannot believe the Nazis would bother transporting Hungarian Jews to Auschwitz to kill them and he certainly does not believe they could cremate on pyres as described by the witnesses.

[Stubble]

Nessie, you don't talk to me about incredulity, you still can't explain why the milk and cookies I leave for Santa are gone on Christmas morning.

You incredulity doesn't change the facts, Santa is real, I've seen him. He had a bell and for some reason was asking for my money, but, he was there dammit, I've seen him with my own eyes.

You know what I haven't seen? The archeology study from The Auschwitz Complexes in 1968. I haven't seen their photos of the floor of LK-1 at Krema III, their core samples study, their excavations (short of a brief film called Archeologia, that clearly shows the study was indeed conducted), nothing.

I've asked, and, uh, the study results are not forthcoming. I want to ask you something, why would people be afraid of archeology results 'fueling denialism'. You, don't suppose those results don't support the claims do you?

[Archie]

How does disbelief over,

1 - how the cremation pyres were set, prove there were no cremation pyres?
2 - how the gas chambers were vented, prove there were no gas chambers?
3 - how the graves fitted so many corpses, prove there were no mass graves?
4 - how the ovens could cope with so many cremations, prove there were no mass cremations?

Where is your counter-analysis on all of these points?

1 - How much wood do you think is needed to cremate a human body? Do you believe HC's preposterous claim that you can cremate a body with 15 kg of wood?

You cannot counter these points by ranting about "argument from incredulity."

I have generally stopped posting AI since it doesn't ever settle anything, but just for fun I will share this because it is absolutely spot on here.

Prompt: Evaluate this exchange (not for the specific content but for the quality of argumentation): Person A: The report implies that around 4,000 cremations were performed per day with wood in open air. However, a cremation requires a substantial amount of fuel. Hindu funeral pyres traditionally use 500+ kg of wood. In agricultural contexts where efficiency is paramount, fuel to mass ratio is often 2:1 or 3:1 (and not necessarily for complete cremation). We might posit 150 kg per body as a conservative estimate. But this would be 60 metric tons of wood per day. This would be impossible to gather locally and there is no evidence of a standing order for such a massive delivery wood. That 4,000 bodies per day were being cremated is therefore highly implausible and the figure is likely a gross exaggeration.

Person B: That's an argument from incredulity. Just because you can't work out where the fuel came from doesn't mean that it couldn't have happened. There are witnesses to the cremations. This proves that they took place and we therefore know that they were technically possible.

Response:
[...]
What Person B does poorly

Misuse of “argument from incredulity”:
An argument from incredulity is roughly: “I can’t imagine how X could be true, therefore X is false.”
Person A does not argue from imagination or personal disbelief; they argue from logistical constraints and quantitative reasoning. Calling this an argument from incredulity is a category error.

Failure to engage the substance:
Person B does not address:

the fuel estimates,
the supply-chain problem,
or whether alternative explanations exist.
Labeling a fallacy without engaging the premises is a rhetorical move, not a rebuttal.

Invalid inference from testimony to feasibility:

“There are witnesses… This proves that they took place and we therefore know that they were technically possible.”

This contains multiple problems:

Witness testimony → occurrence does not establish scale, rate, or method.
Even if something occurred, it does not follow that it occurred at the claimed magnitude.
“It happened” does not logically entail “it was technically possible at the claimed scale” without independent support.

Additional fallacies in Person B’s reply

Non sequitur: The conclusion does not follow from the premise.
False dichotomy: Treats “it happened” vs. “it didn’t happen” as exhaustive, ignoring disputes about how much, how often, or how.
Shifting the burden of proof: Person B implies that unless Person A can disprove feasibility, the claim stands—this is not how evidential claims work.

Overall assessment:
Person B’s response is argumentatively weak. It relies on mislabeling, does not address the core reasoning, and introduces its own logical errors.

Comparative evaluation

Person A is engaging in substantive argumentation: estimating, reasoning, and drawing a cautious (if imperfectly framed) conclusion.
Person B is engaging in deflection: naming a fallacy incorrectly and substituting assertion for analysis.

If this were a debate judged on argument quality alone, Person A’s argument is significantly stronger, even though it is open to critique and refinement. The appropriate response to Person A would be to:

challenge the assumptions,
provide counter‑evidence,
or show alternative logistical mechanisms — not to dismiss the argument with an inaccurate fallacy label.

[Archie]

What makes it “obviously false” despite all corroborating evidence?

Work from first principles (google this phrase if you don’t know what it means)

Nessie is amazingly bad at making arguments even with a gimme like the Santa example. He doesn't see why "Santa isn't real because it's impossible" is a bad argument. It's begging the question. If someone already accepts the premise that Santa is impossible, then they would already accept the conclusion automatically and would not need further convincing. This inability to see other viewpoints is one of the reasons why he's unable to summarize revisionist arguments correctly. Nessie thinks his personal opinions are self-evidently true and that anyone who disagrees is doing fallacies, etc.

[HansHill]

Correct Archie, he is abysmal at constructing arguments.

I will do him a favour and construct from first principles a set of arguments that demonstrate the Santa narrative is unsupported.

1) The eyewitnesses are unreliable, make wild and unsupported claims, often invoking fantasy and overtly emotional elements.

2) The perpetrators who corroborate the narrative are demonstrated as having a set bias or agenda, in this instance, they corroborate the Santa narrative to give their child(ren) a heightened sense of fantasy and wonder.

3) One or more practical laws of nature are rendered as inexplicably violated were the Santa narrative to be true.

I’ll leave it there for now because this is ridiculous, but read all three of the above bery carefully and you’ll see exactly why Nessie is reluctant to say any of this for Santa, because of its implications for the Holocaust.

[Nessie]

How does disbelief over,

1 - how the cremation pyres were set, prove there were no cremation pyres?
2 - how the gas chambers were vented, prove there were no gas chambers?
3 - how the graves fitted so many corpses, prove there were no mass graves?
4 - how the ovens could cope with so many cremations, prove there were no mass cremations?

Where is your counter-analysis on all of these points?

I have provided it. Those points are arguments from incredulity. Your disbelief and inability to work out how pyres were set etc, to your satisfaction, is not evidence to prove there were no cremations etc.

1 - How much wood do you think is needed to cremate a human body? Do you believe HC's preposterous claim that you can cremate a body with 15 kg of wood?

You cannot counter these points by ranting about "argument from incredulity."

Yes I can. You cannot use your belief that cremations as described are "preposterous" as evidence to prove there were no such cremations. To do so, is to use a logical fallacy.

I have generally stopped posting AI since it doesn't ever settle anything, but just for fun I will share this because it is absolutely spot on here.

Prompt: Evaluate this exchange (not for the specific content but for the quality of argumentation): Person A: The report implies that around 4,000 cremations were performed per day with wood in open air. However, a cremation requires a substantial amount of fuel. Hindu funeral pyres traditionally use 500+ kg of wood. In agricultural contexts where efficiency is paramount, fuel to mass ratio is often 2:1 or 3:1 (and not necessarily for complete cremation). We might posit 150 kg per body as a conservative estimate. But this would be 60 metric tons of wood per day. This would be impossible to gather locally and there is no evidence of a standing order for such a massive delivery wood. That 4,000 bodies per day were being cremated is therefore highly implausible and the figure is likely a gross exaggeration.

You have artificially created a worst case scenario. Hindu pyres are of individual corpses. A better comparison would be the pyres at Dresden and Ohrdruf, that looked like the pyres described at the AR camps. Estimate how much wood was in those pyres, per corpse and it will be far lower than 500+kg, let alone 150kg. You then ignore Poland had huge forests, many wood yards and the AR camps could get deliveries by rail, which is evidenced for wood used for building.

Person B: That's an argument from incredulity. Just because you can't work out where the fuel came from doesn't mean that it couldn't have happened. There are witnesses to the cremations. This proves that they took place and we therefore know that they were technically possible.

Response:
[...]
What Person B does poorly

Misuse of “argument from incredulity”:
An argument from incredulity is roughly: “I can’t imagine how X could be true, therefore X is false.”
Person A does not argue from imagination or personal disbelief; they argue from logistical constraints and quantitative reasoning. Calling this an argument from incredulity is a category error.

I disagree with that. Person A is arguing that because they cannot work out how the pyres were possible, based on what they think the pyres needed for fuel, which is exaggerated and misrepresented, therefore there were no pyres.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/personal-incredulity

"Because you found something difficult to understand, or are unaware of how it works, you made out like it's probably not true."

Ask AI if your inability to understand how the mass pyres could have worked, based on some estimations based on individual pyres, is evidence to prove there were no mass pyres.

Failure to engage the substance:
Person B does not address:

the fuel estimates,
the supply-chain problem,
or whether alternative explanations exist.

That has been done, which you ignore. It is telling you ask AI to defend you, as it shows you cannot do it yourself. Instead of using Hindu pyres, tell AI about the mass pyres at Dresden and that they had a layer of wood below the corpses, which would potentially amount to 20kg per corpses. Tell AI about the size of the Polish forests and how wood could be delivered by rail to the camps. Then see what it thinks about your belief the pyres were preposterous.

Labeling a fallacy without engaging the premises is a rhetorical move, not a rebuttal.

Invalid inference from testimony to feasibility:

“There are witnesses… This proves that they took place and we therefore know that they were technically possible.”

This contains multiple problems:

Witness testimony → occurrence does not establish scale, rate, or method.
Even if something occurred, it does not follow that it occurred at the claimed magnitude.
“It happened” does not logically entail “it was technically possible at the claimed scale” without independent support.

Additional fallacies in Person B’s reply

Non sequitur: The conclusion does not follow from the premise.
False dichotomy: Treats “it happened” vs. “it didn’t happen” as exhaustive, ignoring disputes about how much, how often, or how.
Shifting the burden of proof: Person B implies that unless Person A can disprove feasibility, the claim stands—this is not how evidential claims work.

The AI response is about the claimed size of the pyres. It is not claiming pyres are an impossibility, as there is so much evidence they are possible. AI does not get round the evidential flaw of your argument, which is that pyres are evidenced, by multiple eyewitnesses, cremated remains and circumstantial evidence of the disappearance of so many people.

When a physically possible act is proven to have happened, you cannot logically, or evidentially claim it did not happen, because it was not possible. You base your claim it was not possible, on poor witness descriptions, and no details about issues such as wood collection, because of the destruction of evidence. You did not tell AI about that, now, did you!

Overall assessment:
Person B’s response is argumentatively weak. It relies on mislabeling, does not address the core reasoning, and introduces its own logical errors.

You have fed AI with a false comparison by using Hindu individual cremations, rather than Dresden mass cremations pyres and failed to tell it about the ease of getting wood to the AR camps.

Comparative evaluation

Person A is engaging in substantive argumentation: estimating, reasoning, and drawing a cautious (if imperfectly framed) conclusion.
Person B is engaging in deflection: naming a fallacy incorrectly and substituting assertion for analysis.

If this were a debate judged on argument quality alone, Person A’s argument is significantly stronger, even though it is open to critique and refinement. The appropriate response to Person A would be to:

challenge the assumptions,
provide counter‑evidence,
or show alternative logistical mechanisms — not to dismiss the argument with an inaccurate fallacy label.

Substitute Hindu pyres with Dresden pyres and a far lower amount of wood per corpse and add in being able to get wood delivered by rail from the many Polish wood yards. Also, tell AI that all of the workers inside the camps and people who lived near to them, reported months of constant burning and that archaeological surveys have found large areas of buried, cremated remains. I dare you to do that and post the results.

[HansHill]

Holy brainrot low IQ missing the point brain damage Batman

[Nessie]

What makes it “obviously false” despite all corroborating evidence?

Work from first principles (google this phrase if you don’t know what it means)

Nessie is amazingly bad at making arguments

Said the person who has to resort to getting AI to argue for him!

..even with a gimme like the Santa example. He doesn't see why "Santa isn't real because it's impossible" is a bad argument. It's begging the question.

Please evidence your claim that I do not understand begging the question. I predict you will not do that, because you cannot. You have lied, again.

If someone already accepts the premise that Santa is impossible, then they would already accept the conclusion automatically and would not need further convincing. This inability to see other viewpoints is one of the reasons why he's unable to summarize revisionist arguments correctly. Nessie thinks his personal opinions are self-evidently true and that anyone who disagrees is doing fallacies, etc.

More lies. I believe in what is evidenced to have happened. You demand that I reject that evidenced version of events, because you think it is preposterous and then you fail to evidence what happened instead.

[HansHill]

Thats enough internet for today Nessie

[Nessie]

Correct Archie, he is abysmal at constructing arguments.

I will do him a favour and construct from first principles a set of arguments that demonstrate the Santa narrative is unsupported.

1) The eyewitnesses are unreliable, make wild and unsupported claims, often invoking fantasy and overtly emotional elements.

2) The perpetrators who corroborate the narrative are demonstrated as having a set bias or agenda, in this instance, they corroborate the Santa narrative to give their child(ren) a heightened sense of fantasy and wonder.

3) One or more practical laws of nature are rendered as inexplicably violated were the Santa narrative to be true.

I’ll leave it there for now because this is ridiculous, but read all three of the above bery carefully and you’ll see exactly why Nessie is reluctant to say any of this for Santa, because of its implications for the Holocaust.

I agree with your three points and have already said that they are the reasons why the Santa narrative is proven to be false. It is a false narrative created by parents, to make Christmas more magical for their children, who fail to understand that the claims made about the delivery of presents are physically impossible.

That has no implications for the Holocaust, as the Nazis had the motive, ability and opportunity to mass murder millions of Jews during WII and there is corroborating evidence to prove mass murders took place.

[Nessie]

Holy brainrot low IQ missing the point brain damage Batman

Here are the questions and points you repeatedly dodged, again;

Why don't you justify your claim that because you cannot work out how the gas chambers could have functioned as described by the witnesses and from the evidence left of their existence, that proves there never were any such gas chambers?

Why don't you justify your claim that because you cannot work out how the gas chambers could have functioned whilst leaving no apparent PB and low traces of HCN, that proves there never were any such gas chambers?

Despite repeated requests, you still are unable to justify your argument that because you doubt gassing was possible, because you cannot work out how it could leave no PB and low HCN residue, that is evidence to prove there never were any gassings.

Please explain and justify, logically and evidentially, how that because you are not convinced by the explanations given by various chemists, as to why there is a lack of PB and low HCN residue, that is reason to believe there were no gassings?

What is it, about your personal incredulity, that means you think you can successfully argue there were no gas chambers?

How does not being able to understand why there is no visible PB and low traces of HCN, evidence that mass gassing did not happen?

How does your inability to work out, to your satisfaction, how gassings left no apparent PB and little HCN residue, prove that there were no gas chambers? Why is your incredulity evidence to prove there were no gas chambers?

Your response was;

Because under the conditions described its formation is expected.

So, all you did, in response to a series of questions and points about the evidential value of your incredulity, was to repeat the reason for your incredulity.

[Nessie]

Callafangers cannot work out, to his satisfaction, how the Kremas would have low levels of HCN, how one archaeologist's finds square with another and how the pyres could have enough fuel and argues that proves there were no mass murders. It does not matter he cannot trace the people he claims were not murdered.

viewtopic.php?p=22238#p22238

Unchallenged specifics persist:

FeCN (Birkenau): Rudolf modeling predicts stable FeCN; Markiewicz's unbound-HCN volatility undermines itself. This is a direct challenge to your tally (and narrative) at Birkenau.
Sobibor Graves: Mazurek empties Kola's "dense" graves (numbers 1/2/7 shown as near-completely empty, highlighting Kola's trend of dramatic inflation of findings); reasonable range of actual corpses is approximately 2.7k-17k, per charitable inference on Mazurek descriptions.
Fuel Math: >400kg/corpse (TORC/2024 peer-review); child skew ~12% reduction (pre-factored); your "Z%" multiplies unproven graves (zero unearthed, and senseless to unload corpses when the rail destination was a cremation camp).

Physical factors nullify extermination first; "where 100% went" is secondary (transit/labor/disease fits here). Non-AR deaths are irrelevant to AR impossibilities.

https://thelogicofscience.com/2024/05/1 ... -im-wrong/

"“Incredulity” refers to an inability or unwillingness to consider the possibility of something, and the fallacy occurs when someone asserts that they are right about something because they cannot personally imagine that the alternative is true."

[Nessie]

Nessie, you don't talk to me about incredulity, you still can't explain why the milk and cookies I leave for Santa are gone on Christmas morning.

You incredulity doesn't change the facts, Santa is real, I've seen him. He had a bell and for some reason was asking for my money, but, he was there dammit, I've seen him with my own eyes.

You are just embarrassing yourself with the Santa analogy. How the Santa legend developed and how it plays out each Christmas is very well evidenced.

You know what I haven't seen? The archeology study from The Auschwitz Complexes in 1968. I haven't seen their photos of the floor of LK-1 at Krema III, their core samples study, their excavations (short of a brief film called Archeologia, that clearly shows the study was indeed conducted), nothing.

I've asked, and, uh, the study results are not forthcoming. I want to ask you something, why would people be afraid of archeology results 'fueling denialism'. You, don't suppose those results don't support the claims do you?

Have you requested access to the study?

I have shown you use multiple arguments from incredulity, why have you not explained how they are logically and evidentially sound?