"Beliefs" aren't necessarily wrong (reply to Nessie)

[Archie]

Responding to this bit of nonsense from Nessie here in a separate thread.

Stubble, please explain the logic that because you find gassings unbelievable, therefore they did not happen.

First of all, this is Nessie's characterization (distortion) of what revisionists argue. No revisionist has ever made such an argument (especially with "therefore").

Second, the word belief covers a broad range. A belief could be baseless and irrational. It could be self-serving. It could be based on careful, objective, intelligent consideration. It could be based on elaborate sophistry. In epistemology, sometimes you will hear the terms "justified" and "unjustified" belief. This recognizes that the truth may not be knowable with certainty (i.e., it is possible for justified beliefs to be false or for unjustified beliefs to be true).

Nessie is basically just doing the Big Lebowski meme.



You could dismiss any conclusion this way. This settles nothing at all.

"I do not believe hundreds of thousands were gassed at this camp"

The above is a statement of opinion. A conclusion. We cannot say it is false BECAUSE it is an opinion. That's just an assertion that we are wrong. The relevant follow-up question here would be: What are your reasons for not believing it? The strength of the position would depend on how strong the reasons are.

Now, could someone look at the same information and reach a conclusion different from that of the revisionists? Sure. This is called disagreement. Both sides could then give their competing reasoning and this could inspire further research, future books and articles, etc. But to fall back on "You are wrong because [circular reasoning]" is not very productive.

Reminders from the Forum Rules

Refrain from unsupported disagreement. This means that if you disagree with something or think it is incorrect, you must explain why you disagree or show why it's incorrect. A mere expression of disapproval is not sufficient.

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."

[Nessie]

Responding to this bit of nonsense from Nessie here in a separate thread.

Stubble, please explain the logic that because you find gassings unbelievable, therefore they did not happen.

First of all, this is Nessie's characterization (distortion) of what revisionists argue. No revisionist has ever made such an argument (especially with "therefore").

Revisionists use that form of argument, more than any other argument and way more than any evidence. They explain why they find witness claims unbelievable and why documents mean something innocuous, or they are fake and why archaeological finds are not the smoking gun and claim, no mass killings.

Second, the word belief covers a broad range. A belief could be baseless and irrational. It could be self-serving. It could be based on careful, objective, intelligent consideration. It could be based on elaborate sophistry. In epistemology, sometimes you will hear the terms "justified" and "unjustified" belief. This recognizes that the truth may not be knowable with certainty (i.e., it is possible for justified beliefs to be false or for unjustified beliefs to be true).

Nessie is basically just doing the Big Lebowski meme.



You could dismiss any conclusion this way. This settles nothing at all.

"I do not believe hundreds of thousands were gassed at this camp"

It is why revisionists do not believe in the gassings that make their arguments the fallacy of incredulity. They find 100% of the witnesses historians and the courts accepted, to be liars, who make claims to incredible to believe, or they were coerced.

The above is a statement of opinion. A conclusion. We cannot say it is false BECAUSE it is an opinion. That's just an assertion that we are wrong. The relevant follow-up question here would be: What are your reasons for not believing it? The strength of the position would depend on how strong the reasons are.

You are trying to create a false position, whereby you are just expressing an opinion, and that opinion is not definitive. But, it is, as you claim there were no mass gassings.

Now, could look at the same information and reach a conclusion different from that of the revisionists? Sure. This is called disagreement. Both sides could then give their competing reasoning and this could inspire further research, future books and articles, etc. But to fall back on "You are wrong because [circular reasoning]" is not very productive.

Reminders from the Forum Rules

Refrain from unsupported disagreement. This means that if you disagree with something or think it is incorrect, you must explain why you disagree or show why it's incorrect. A mere expression of disapproval is not sufficient.

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."

My argument is not circular reasoning. I am not even making an argument, as I am following the norm of any historical and criminal investigation, by gathering evidence to establish what happened. My opinion hardly comes into it. When every camp staff witness claims mass gassings and they are supported by corroborating evidence, my opinion plays no part. When a senior Nazi talks about the extermination of the Jews, it is my opinion that he means killings, because of the evidence of the killings. My opinion is supported by the evidence.

Your idea of a disagreement is not that you disagree about what happened in the camps, according to the staff, from what I think they describe. The disagreement is that you claim they are all liars, whereas I say they are telling the truth.

Your beliefs are wrong, because they are not only not supported by the evidence, they are contradicted by it.

[HansHill]

I see Nessie invoking the argument from incredulity fallacy again. This question is addressed to our Exterminationist friends, particularly the PhD holders, Numar Patru and Sanity Check:

Do you gentlemen agree with Nessie's repeated invoking of the argument from incredulity used in such cases? You may have seen that Revisionists have admonished him multiple times about his misuse of this fallacy and he either i) strategically deploys it despite the advice that he's misusing it, or ii) genuinely doesn't understand the fallacy given that it is modestly challenging to grasp.

Is there anything you would like to advise Nessie in his use of this fallacy?

[Archie]

Your beliefs are wrong, because they are not only not supported by the evidence, they are contradicted by it.

Literally everyone thinks this about their own opinions. A key premise of debate is that we can't assume ahead of time which side is correct. If you want to participate on a debate forum like this one, you can't just say "I'm right and you're wrong. QED."

"My opinion hardly comes into it."

Okay, so let's see if I have this straight. When you give your opinions, these are not opinions but rather are pure and perfect distillations of "the evidence." But when revisionists give opinions, those are just arbitrary opinions and we are just automatically wrong.

Please be serious. If conclusions followed automatically from "the evidence" with no individual judgment whatsoever, then nobody would ever disagree about anything.

[TlsMS93]

So, does this guy mean that it is impossible for 100% of people to be wrong about something? Based on what? Does the fact that I work in a place guarantee that I know everything about that job or what happens there?

The Sonderkommando simply surfed on what was being said and it was stimulating to give dramatic contours to the rumor, they had nothing to lose and everything to gain by supporting those narratives of atrocity that were already “common knowledge” in 1942 onwards, not by them but by spies who had escaped from the camp.

Now, recently, an article by Mattogno came out about cremations in AB in Kremas and in the open air and so far the exterminationists have not taken each argument and refuted it.

The exterminationist trinity is deportation records, is it not possible that 100% of the witnesses lied and where did they go?

If all this doesn’t make sense, they resort to the “it was technically possible because it happened.”

[Numar Patru]

Do you gentlemen agree with Nessie's repeated invoking of the argument from incredulity used in such cases? You may have seen that Revisionists have admonished him multiple times about his misuse of this fallacy and he either i) strategically deploys it despite the advice that he's misusing it, or ii) genuinely doesn't understand the fallacy given that it is modestly challenging to grasp.

Is there anything you would like to advise Nessie in his use of this fallacy?

The fallacy can be evoked in cases in which no attempt has been made to determine whether the version of events under debate is actually possible.

I see this a lot with gas chamber claims. People say they don’t believe you can gas 1,000 people in a room of a certain size by throwing Zyklon-B pellets on the ground. Merely asserting this opinion is an argument from incredulity and is not valid.

Now, a person can be more specific about their reasons for not believing, e.g., Zyklon won’t outgas below a certain temperature. But there’s a counter argument to be made in this case, i.e., a room packed with people is going to be very warm. Then you’re back to step one, for all intents and purposes.

Where the returns on charging an appeal to incredulity diminish to zero is a question I can’t answer.

[Nessie]

Your beliefs are wrong, because they are not only not supported by the evidence, they are contradicted by it.

Literally everyone thinks this about their own opinions. A key premise of debate is that we can't assume ahead of time which side is correct. If you want to participate on a debate forum like this one, you can't just say "I'm right and you're wrong. QED."

When the evidence is on my side and contrary to yours, I am far more likely to be right than you.

"My opinion hardly comes into it."

I talk about evidence, a lot. You have yet again not even mentioned evidence, despite it being crucial to beliefs, opinions and the debate.

Okay, so let's see if I have this straight. When you give your opinions, these are not opinions but rather are pure and perfect distillations of "the evidence." But when revisionists give opinions, those are just arbitrary opinions and we are just automatically wrong.

I give evidence, far more than I give opinions. For example, I quote a witness and that witness is corroborated. Evidentially, I have established the truthfulness of that witness. You then attack that witness, because they are maybe not that credible or they make an obvious error and declare the witness to be a liar. That is your opinion and it is not supported by the corroboration or what is known about the inaccuracy of witness memory and recall.

Please be serious. If conclusions followed automatically from "the evidence" with no individual judgment whatsoever, then nobody would ever disagree about anything.

There is very little judgement needed, when every single witness who worked at, for example TII, states it was used to gas people, there were mass graves and cremations and those claims are corroborated by a combination of documentary, physical, archaeological and circumstantial evidence. That volume of evidence, would normally be considered a slam dunk, proven beyond reasonable doubt. Revisionists then apply their rather dubious opinions on the evidence and come to a non conclusion that there were no gassings, graves and cremations, but they cannot evidence what did happen. Yet again, revisionism is led by opinion, not evidence.

[Nessie]

So, does this guy mean that it is impossible for 100% of people to be wrong about something? Based on what? Does the fact that I work in a place guarantee that I know everything about that job or what happens there?

Studies of witnesses prove that it is highly unlikely that they will be 100% accurate, even about small event. It is equally unlikely that 100% of them will successfully lie about an event as large as the Holocaust.

The Sonderkommando simply surfed on what was being said and it was stimulating to give dramatic contours to the rumor, they had nothing to lose and everything to gain by supporting those narratives of atrocity that were already “common knowledge” in 1942 onwards, not by them but by spies who had escaped from the camp.

The earliest, most detailed and accurate reports came from Sonderkommados who escaped from the camps. The Nazis then corroborated those claims. That, it itself, is very strong corroborative evidence.

Now, recently, an article by Mattogno came out about cremations in AB in Kremas and in the open air and so far the exterminationists have not taken each argument and refuted it.

Mattogno cannot argue the Holocaust away, he needs to evidence an alternative. Just because he cannot work out how cremations and pyres were possible, does not mean therefore no cremations and pyres.

The exterminationist trinity is deportation records, is it not possible that 100% of the witnesses lied and where did they go?

If all this doesn’t make sense, they resort to the “it was technically possible because it happened.”

Revisionists not being able to evidence an alternative, with transport records and resettlement locations, the unlikeliness of 100% of witnesses successfully lying and the logic of if it happened, then of course it was possible, are reasons why revisionist beliefs are wrong.

[Nessie]

Do you gentlemen agree with Nessie's repeated invoking of the argument from incredulity used in such cases? You may have seen that Revisionists have admonished him multiple times about his misuse of this fallacy and he either i) strategically deploys it despite the advice that he's misusing it, or ii) genuinely doesn't understand the fallacy given that it is modestly challenging to grasp.

Is there anything you would like to advise Nessie in his use of this fallacy?

The fallacy can be evoked in cases in which no attempt has been made to determine whether the version of events under debate is actually possible.

I disagree with your arbitrary condition, because of the definitions of the fallacy.

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."

https://effectiviology.com/argument-from-incredulity/

"...if I can’t explain or imagine how a certain proposition could be true, then it must be false."

Those definitions include where someone has tried to work out how something happened, and they cannot.

I see this a lot with gas chamber claims. People say they don’t believe you can gas 1,000 people in a room of a certain size by throwing Zyklon-B pellets on the ground. Merely asserting this opinion is an argument from incredulity and is not valid.

Now, a person can be more specific about their reasons for not believing, e.g., Zyklon won’t outgas below a certain temperature. But there’s a counter argument to be made in this case, i.e., a room packed with people is going to be very warm. Then you’re back to step one, for all intents and purposes.

Where the returns on charging an appeal to incredulity diminish to zero is a question I can’t answer.

The reason why revisionists cannot work out how gassings were possible, is the lack of specific, reliable, detailed evidence, such as the temperature of the gas chambers, or how many people were packed inside. The Nazis did not leave behind documents recording daily temperature checks, or how many people were gassed each time and both are likely to have varied each day. Revisionists have to estimate or guess and they make a lot of assumptions, which are affected by their bias and desire to disbelieve. Just because revisionists have poured over the evidence, and they cannot work out to their satisfaction how gassings were possible, does not therefore mean no gassings.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Science_d ... everything

""Science doesn't know everything" (also "Science can't explain X"[note 1]) is an argument that asserts that, because of science's lack of knowledge about something, something else must be true."

Revisionist application of science to gassings, graves and cremations cannot work out how they were possible, but that does not mean they are impossible and did not happen and resettlement is true.

[HansHill]

It will be interesting to see how Numar addresses Nessie's answer here!

[Archie]

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

https://effectiviology.com/argument-from-incredulity/

"...if I can’t explain or imagine how a certain proposition could be true, then it must be false."

Those definitions include where someone has tried to work out how something happened, and they cannot.

We've explained to you many times why you are wrong about this.

These examples are talking about arbitrary PERSONAL incredulity. Say there's a scientific theory or principle that you find counterintuitive. If you say "I don't see how that could be true," that would be an example of this fallacy, if such a statement can be called an argument. You could just as easily call this a "fallacy of personal ignorance."

It is not a fallacy to "try to work out how something happened" and point out that it's BS or wildly improbable. If we have a story full of contradictions and absurdities and NOBODY (not just me) can make it work, then we are absolutely justified in concluding that it is most likely false, barring stronger confirmation.

[TlsMS93]

Mattogno has already irrefutably proven the impossibility of cremating a person with just 3.5 kg of coal. But for Nessie, some crazy formula that circumvented the laws of thermodynamics was hovering over that field in Lower Poland that caused millions to be cremated without documented fuel and without the need to renovate the refractory brick.

It's hard to debate with these exterminationists who only defend arguments, like a debate between believers and atheists.

[Stubble]

Mattogno has already irrefutably proven the impossibility of cremating a person with just 3.5 kg of coal. But for Nessie, some crazy formula that circumvented the laws of thermodynamics was hovering over that field in Lower Poland that caused millions to be cremated without documented fuel and without the need to renovate the refractory brick.

It's hard to debate with these exterminationists who only defend arguments, like a debate between believers and atheists.

You misunderstand and he is going to quote from the nkvd interrogation (or was it smersh) of the engineer, that the bodies burn each other.

I could cite testimony that says you just use some straw and sticks to start the cremation ovens, then they just run on their own because people are somehow not the object of destruction in the scenario, but, also the fuel.

If you say you can't reconcile that because it's just so stupid, that, will be referred to as the 'argument from incredulity'.

It's just so very tiresome.

[Nessie]

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

https://effectiviology.com/argument-from-incredulity/

"...if I can’t explain or imagine how a certain proposition could be true, then it must be false."

Those definitions include where someone has tried to work out how something happened, and they cannot.

We've explained to you many times why you are wrong about this.

These examples are talking about arbitrary PERSONAL incredulity. Say there's a scientific theory or principle that you find counterintuitive. If you say "I don't see how that could be true," that would be an example of this fallacy, if such a statement can be called an argument. You could just as easily call this a "fallacy of personal ignorance."

It is not a fallacy to "try to work out how something happened" and point out that it's BS or wildly improbable. If we have a story full of contradictions and absurdities and NOBODY (not just me) can make it work, then we are absolutely justified in concluding that it is most likely false, barring stronger confirmation.

You are wrong. Even if no one, including a cremation expert, can work out exactly how the ovens could cremate so many corpses, there are German engineers who explained how they worked and evidence that they worked, so they worked! The corroborating evidence proves that they worked.

You also misrepresent the "story". It is not "full of contradictions", in fact there is significant agreement between the witness, who clearly describe the same ovens at A-B and the same types of pyre at the AR camps. As for "absurdities" you take emotive descriptions, that will contain errors, such as the numbers cremated on the pyres and claim that is evidence they cannot have worked. Whereas, those errors are explainable by studies of witnesses and memory.

You would object if I used the same form of argument and claimed because I can work out how the ovens could cremate so many, therefore they cremated hundreds of thousands of corpses. Neither of us can claim our opinion and calculations are so definitive, it acts as proof. Only evidence can prove.

[Stubble]

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

https://effectiviology.com/argument-from-incredulity/

"...if I can’t explain or imagine how a certain proposition could be true, then it must be false."

Those definitions include where someone has tried to work out how something happened, and they cannot.

We've explained to you many times why you are wrong about this.

These examples are talking about arbitrary PERSONAL incredulity. Say there's a scientific theory or principle that you find counterintuitive. If you say "I don't see how that could be true," that would be an example of this fallacy, if such a statement can be called an argument. You could just as easily call this a "fallacy of personal ignorance."

It is not a fallacy to "try to work out how something happened" and point out that it's BS or wildly improbable. If we have a story full of contradictions and absurdities and NOBODY (not just me) can make it work, then we are absolutely justified in concluding that it is most likely false, barring stronger confirmation.

You are wrong. Even if no one, including a cremation expert, can work out exactly how the ovens could cremate so many corpses, there are German engineers who explained how they worked and evidence that they worked, so they worked! The corroborating evidence proves that they worked.

You also misrepresent the "story". It is not "full of contradictions", in fact there is significant agreement between the witness, who clearly describe the same ovens at A-B and the same types of pyre at the AR camps. As for "absurdities" you take emotive descriptions, that will contain errors, such as the numbers cremated on the pyres and claim that is evidence they cannot have worked. Whereas, those errors are explainable by studies of witnesses and memory.

You would object if I used the same form of argument and claimed because I can work out how the ovens could cremate so many, therefore they cremated hundreds of thousands of corpses. Neither of us can claim our opinion and calculations are so definitive, it acts as proof. Only evidence can prove.

Look at your last paragraph, then look at the title of the thread, then read the original post and tell me if anything stands out to you.

Or don't.

/shrug