Logical Fallacies [Remedial education for Nessie]

[Nazgul]

This is for Nessie (or others) to post about logical fallacies, instead of cluttering threads up with inane babble. I think it is OK on the main threads to point out a logical error with reasons but not to constantly dismiss all reasoning with the fallacies claim. This could be a storage point for the moderator to store the inane babble on fallacies and logical errors.

[Nessie]

Nazgul, stop pretending you are a moderator!

I point out logical fallacies a lot, because revisionists rely on them, a lot!

[Nazgul]

Nazgul, stop pretending you are a moderator!

I point out logical fallacies a lot, because revisionists rely on them, a lot!

I am trying to keep you out of bother here. There is nothing wrong with point out the logical fallacy but bring it down here on this thread for discussion. You can copy and paste. The issue is that there is a problem with derailing threads with constant talk on evidencing etc. Bring that down here and invite your oppenents to discuss it here.

[Nessie]

Stop following me around here, commenting on every post I make and at RODOH, moderating what I say. It has got very creepy.

[Nazgul]

Stop following me around here, commenting on every post I make and at RODOH, moderating what I say. It has got very creepy.

[Archie]

Nessie, since you won't listen to me, here is Chat GPT explaining repeatedly why your understanding of "argument from incredulity" is totally wrong. Feel free to try it out yourself. Or if you prefer, email a philosophy professor and let us know what they say. I guarantee you you will not find anyone credible who will endorse your version.

Q: Is there a fallacy called argument from incredulity?

A: Yes, the argument from incredulity (also known as the appeal to incredulity) is indeed recognized as a logical fallacy. It occurs when someone dismisses or rejects an argument or claim simply because they find it difficult to believe or understand, rather than on the basis of evidence or logical reasoning. The idea is that if something seems implausible or complex, it must not be true, which isn’t a valid basis for evaluating truth or validity.

An example might be someone saying, “I just can’t imagine how evolution could produce complex life forms, so it must be false.” This reasoning overlooks the extensive scientific evidence supporting evolution and instead relies on personal incredulity as grounds for rejection.

This fallacy is related to the argument from ignorance, which asserts that something must be true (or false) simply because it hasn't been proven otherwise. Both fallacies bypass a true evaluation of the argument or claim and instead rely on subjective inability or unwillingness to accept it.

Q: Is it a fallacy to disbelieve something that is wildly implausible? Is that an appeal to incredulity?

A: Disbelieving something because it seems wildly implausible isn’t necessarily a fallacy. It can be a reasonable response, especially if the implausible claim lacks evidence or contradicts well-established facts. The appeal to incredulity fallacy specifically refers to rejecting an argument only because it seems hard to believe, without critically assessing the evidence or reasoning provided.

For example:

• If someone rejects a scientific theory, like evolution, solely because they "can't imagine it happening," that would be an argument from incredulity—especially when there’s substantial evidence backing the theory.
• However, if someone hears a wildly implausible claim (say, "I saw a unicorn this morning") and disbelieves it because it goes against everything we know about biology and zoology, that disbelief isn’t a fallacy. It’s a reasoned response, especially if there’s no compelling evidence.

In short, skepticism about implausible claims isn't inherently fallacious. The key is whether disbelief is grounded in critical evaluation of the evidence, not just in a gut reaction of "I can't believe it."

Q: If I were arguing against the reality of Santa Claus and I argued that Santa could not visit that many houses in one night, would that be an incredulity fallacy?

A: No, arguing that Santa couldn’t visit so many houses in one night wouldn’t be an argument from incredulity fallacy; instead, it would be a logistical or practicality-based argument.

The difference is that this reasoning is based on a plausible, evidence-based critique. To make the argument, you’re pointing out real-world limitations, such as time and speed constraints, that make the claim implausible. Rather than rejecting Santa’s existence simply because it’s hard to imagine, you’re providing a specific, rational objection.

If you were simply saying, "I can't believe in Santa because the idea is just too unbelievable," that would be closer to the argument from incredulity fallacy. However, when you offer a tangible, logical reason why Santa’s one-night journey seems impossible, it moves the argument away from an emotional or instinctual response to a reasoned one based on physical constraints.

Q: Suppose there were a magazine article alleging a gang rape at a fraternity. Suppose that that the story were a bit vague and unsourced and there were significant internal contradictions in the story. Would expressing doubt about it be an incredulity fallacy?

A: Expressing doubt in this case would not constitute an argument from incredulity fallacy. If your skepticism is based on specific, concrete issues—such as vagueness, lack of sources, or internal contradictions—then your doubt is grounded in rational concerns about the credibility and coherence of the story, not just in an instinctual disbelief.

The argument from incredulity fallacy applies when disbelief arises solely from a personal inability or unwillingness to believe something, without analyzing any supporting (or contradictory) evidence. In your example, expressing doubt based on identifiable weaknesses in the article’s presentation and reliability is a reasoned critique, not a fallacy. It's reasonable and often necessary to apply a critical eye to any claim—particularly serious ones—when there are gaps or inconsistencies in the evidence presented.

Q: Suppose someone claims to have run a world record 100 meter dash and the only confirmation is a supposed eyewitness. Would rejecting this claim based on general improbability be an incredulity fallacy?

A: Rejecting a claim of a world-record 100-meter dash, based solely on general improbability, would not necessarily be an argument from incredulity fallacy. In this case, you're not rejecting it because you "just can't believe it" without examining relevant factors; rather, you're likely applying reasonable skepticism based on known benchmarks and the extraordinary nature of the claim.

Here’s why this isn't an incredulity fallacy:

Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence: For a claim as remarkable as breaking a world record, substantial verification is expected. The standard evidence for such feats typically includes precise timing systems, multiple reliable witnesses, and often institutional oversight (such as from athletics organizations). Lacking this kind of evidence, it’s reasonable to withhold belief.

Probabilistic Skepticism: World-record performances in elite sports are rare and difficult to achieve, requiring highly specific conditions, training, and verifiable timing. The general improbability of an unverified, single-witness claim is enough reason to doubt its authenticity without resorting to the fallacy of incredulity.

Established Standards for Verification: Official athletic records are set under strict conditions, often with redundancies like video analysis and certified timing devices. Without meeting these standards, it’s reasonable to be skeptical about the claim until additional evidence is provided.

In this case, skepticism based on improbability is actually a reasoned response, not a fallacy. You’re using the lack of verification against an extraordinary benchmark as grounds for doubt, rather than simply rejecting the claim because it sounds incredible.

Q: Suppose that there is a rumor about a creepy neighbor in town. People say he kidnaps children around the country and executes them in a gas chamber in his house. But suppose all the stories are different/inconsistent and moreover the rooms in question don't seem to have the equipment that would be necessary for a functional gas chamber (like being airtight or having a proper exhaust system). Would it be an appeal to incredulity to disbelieve the stories about this neighbor?

A: In this case, disbelieving the stories about the creepy neighbor would not be an appeal to incredulity fallacy, because your skepticism is based on the inconsistencies in the stories and the lack of physical evidence to support the claims.

Here’s why:

Inconsistencies and Contradictions: If the stories are different or contradictory, that undermines their credibility. A credible story, especially one as serious as this, would likely have more consistency across witnesses or sources. Disbelieving the rumor based on these inconsistencies is a reasonable response, not an appeal to incredulity.

Lack of Evidence: You also mention that the rooms in question don’t have the necessary equipment for a functional gas chamber (like being airtight or having proper exhaust). This is a critical observation based on the physical plausibility of the claim. If the equipment required for such an operation is absent or insufficient, this casts serious doubt on the rumor.

Reasonable Doubt Based on Evidence: Your disbelief is not rooted in a gut reaction of "I can't believe this," but in an objective evaluation of the available evidence. Claims about something as extreme as child kidnappings and executions would require extraordinary evidence, and the lack of consistency and physical evidence here makes skepticism entirely reasonable.

An appeal to incredulity would occur if you rejected the claim solely because it was hard to imagine or believe, without considering the evidence or lack thereof. But here, your skepticism is grounded in the failure of the stories to match up with reality and the absence of necessary physical infrastructure. This makes your doubt well-founded and not fallacious.

[Nessie]

Nessie, since you won't listen to me, here is Chat GPT explaining repeatedly why your understanding of "argument from incredulity" is totally wrong. Feel free to try it out yourself. Or if you prefer, email a philosophy professor and let us know what they say. I guarantee you you will not find anyone credible who will endorse your version.

Q: Is there a fallacy called argument from incredulity?

A: Yes, the argument from incredulity (also known as the appeal to incredulity) is indeed recognized as a logical fallacy. It occurs when someone dismisses or rejects an argument or claim simply because they find it difficult to believe or understand, rather than on the basis of evidence or logical reasoning. The idea is that if something seems implausible or complex, it must not be true, which isn’t a valid basis for evaluating truth or validity.

An example might be someone saying, “I just can’t imagine how evolution could produce complex life forms, so it must be false.” This reasoning overlooks the extensive scientific evidence supporting evolution and instead relies on personal incredulity as grounds for rejection.

This fallacy is related to the argument from ignorance, which asserts that something must be true (or false) simply because it hasn't been proven otherwise. Both fallacies bypass a true evaluation of the argument or claim and instead rely on subjective inability or unwillingness to accept it.

That is exactly what revisionists do. They explain why they think that the gassing and cremation claims are implausible, and then argue, therefore they are not true.

Q: Is it a fallacy to disbelieve something that is wildly implausible? Is that an appeal to incredulity?

A: Disbelieving something because it seems wildly implausible isn’t necessarily a fallacy. It can be a reasonable response, especially if the implausible claim lacks evidence or contradicts well-established facts. The appeal to incredulity fallacy specifically refers to rejecting an argument only because it seems hard to believe, without critically assessing the evidence or reasoning provided.

For example:

• If someone rejects a scientific theory, like evolution, solely because they "can't imagine it happening," that would be an argument from incredulity—especially when there’s substantial evidence backing the theory.
• However, if someone hears a wildly implausible claim (say, "I saw a unicorn this morning") and disbelieves it because it goes against everything we know about biology and zoology, that disbelief isn’t a fallacy. It’s a reasoned response, especially if there’s no compelling evidence.

In short, skepticism about implausible claims isn't inherently fallacious. The key is whether disbelief is grounded in critical evaluation of the evidence, not just in a gut reaction of "I can't believe it."

Germans modifying Kremas for mass gassings, building gas chambers, designing fast acting, multiple corpse cremation ovens and building mass pyres using metal grates, are not wildly implausible. They were all actions that were well within their design and engineering capabilities at the time.

Q: If I were arguing against the reality of Santa Claus and I argued that Santa could not visit that many houses in one night, would that be an incredulity fallacy?

A: No, arguing that Santa couldn’t visit so many houses in one night wouldn’t be an argument from incredulity fallacy; instead, it would be a logistical or practicality-based argument.

The difference is that this reasoning is based on a plausible, evidence-based critique. To make the argument, you’re pointing out real-world limitations, such as time and speed constraints, that make the claim implausible. Rather than rejecting Santa’s existence simply because it’s hard to imagine, you’re providing a specific, rational objection.

If you were simply saying, "I can't believe in Santa because the idea is just too unbelievable," that would be closer to the argument from incredulity fallacy. However, when you offer a tangible, logical reason why Santa’s one-night journey seems impossible, it moves the argument away from an emotional or instinctual response to a reasoned one based on physical constraints.

Santa is implausible. Some German engineers modifying an existing crematorium design to include heated undressing rooms, a ventilated gas chamber and multiple corpse cremation ovens, is not implausible. You have used the fallacy of false comparison, by equating something that is not possible, with something that is.

Q: Suppose there were a magazine article alleging a gang rape at a fraternity. Suppose that that the story were a bit vague and unsourced and there were significant internal contradictions in the story. Would expressing doubt about it be an incredulity fallacy?

A: Expressing doubt in this case would not constitute an argument from incredulity fallacy. If your skepticism is based on specific, concrete issues—such as vagueness, lack of sources, or internal contradictions—then your doubt is grounded in rational concerns about the credibility and coherence of the story, not just in an instinctual disbelief.

The argument from incredulity fallacy applies when disbelief arises solely from a personal inability or unwillingness to believe something, without analyzing any supporting (or contradictory) evidence. In your example, expressing doubt based on identifiable weaknesses in the article’s presentation and reliability is a reasoned critique, not a fallacy. It's reasonable and often necessary to apply a critical eye to any claim—particularly serious ones—when there are gaps or inconsistencies in the evidence presented.

Doubt is expressed in many criminal cases. The evidence determines if a report of a rape is credible and if there is sufficient to prove it happened. In the case you refer to, which is far from unique in reports of rape, there was evidence to doubt the claim, which means legally, the accused are innocent.

In the rape case, the accused denied the crime alleged. In the Nazi gassings, those accused admitted to the crime taking place. That example is another false analogy.

Q: Suppose someone claims to have run a world record 100 meter dash and the only confirmation is a supposed eyewitness. Would rejecting this claim based on general improbability be an incredulity fallacy?

A: Rejecting a claim of a world-record 100-meter dash, based solely on general improbability, would not necessarily be an argument from incredulity fallacy. In this case, you're not rejecting it because you "just can't believe it" without examining relevant factors; rather, you're likely applying reasonable skepticism based on known benchmarks and the extraordinary nature of the claim.

Here’s why this isn't an incredulity fallacy:

Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence: For a claim as remarkable as breaking a world record, substantial verification is expected. The standard evidence for such feats typically includes precise timing systems, multiple reliable witnesses, and often institutional oversight (such as from athletics organizations). Lacking this kind of evidence, it’s reasonable to withhold belief.

Probabilistic Skepticism: World-record performances in elite sports are rare and difficult to achieve, requiring highly specific conditions, training, and verifiable timing. The general improbability of an unverified, single-witness claim is enough reason to doubt its authenticity without resorting to the fallacy of incredulity.

Established Standards for Verification: Official athletic records are set under strict conditions, often with redundancies like video analysis and certified timing devices. Without meeting these standards, it’s reasonable to be skeptical about the claim until additional evidence is provided.

In this case, skepticism based on improbability is actually a reasoned response, not a fallacy. You’re using the lack of verification against an extraordinary benchmark as grounds for doubt, rather than simply rejecting the claim because it sounds incredible.

A claim of a 100m in 5s is inplausible. A claim of 9s is possible, but it may not be a lie, it may be an exaggeration. It is not a reasoned response to reject something as a lie, that may be an exaggeration.

Q: Suppose that there is a rumor about a creepy neighbor in town. People say he kidnaps children around the country and executes them in a gas chamber in his house. But suppose all the stories are different/inconsistent and moreover the rooms in question don't seem to have the equipment that would be necessary for a functional gas chamber (like being airtight or having a proper exhaust system). Would it be an appeal to incredulity to disbelieve the stories about this neighbor?

A: In this case, disbelieving the stories about the creepy neighbor would not be an appeal to incredulity fallacy, because your skepticism is based on the inconsistencies in the stories and the lack of physical evidence to support the claims.

Here’s why:

Inconsistencies and Contradictions: If the stories are different or contradictory, that undermines their credibility. A credible story, especially one as serious as this, would likely have more consistency across witnesses or sources. Disbelieving the rumor based on these inconsistencies is a reasonable response, not an appeal to incredulity.

Lack of Evidence: You also mention that the rooms in question don’t have the necessary equipment for a functional gas chamber (like being airtight or having proper exhaust). This is a critical observation based on the physical plausibility of the claim. If the equipment required for such an operation is absent or insufficient, this casts serious doubt on the rumor.

Reasonable Doubt Based on Evidence: Your disbelief is not rooted in a gut reaction of "I can't believe this," but in an objective evaluation of the available evidence. Claims about something as extreme as child kidnappings and executions would require extraordinary evidence, and the lack of consistency and physical evidence here makes skepticism entirely reasonable.

An appeal to incredulity would occur if you rejected the claim solely because it was hard to imagine or believe, without considering the evidence or lack thereof. But here, your skepticism is grounded in the failure of the stories to match up with reality and the absence of necessary physical infrastructure. This makes your doubt well-founded and not fallacious.

It is not wrong to be incredulous. It is wrong to base a belief on what is not evidenced and what is contradicted by the evidence, which is what revisionists do when they claim mass resettlement happened, instead of mass gassings. Now, how about you email a philosophy professor that exchange and get their opinion?

[Archie]

And of course he doubles down, even though he's obviously wrong.

"False analogy," he says. Except no "analogies" were offered. The point here is to understand the appeal to incredulity in general. The AI, which I'm using as an independent arbiter here, explains the distinction between simple incredulity without any support and justifiable skepticism based on data and reasoning. This is the distinction that everyone else understands but that you refuse to understand. You simply assume a priori that revisioning reasoning is invalid.

Let me be clear. You do not have to agree with the arguments revisionists make. But you must engage with those arguments, not dismiss them out of hand. If we say a witness is not reliable because of X, Y, Z and you want to give a reasoned response explaining why you think the witness is reliable, go right ahead. Or if we say that Treblinka going through 1,000 tons of wood per day to cremate bodies is not realistic and you disagree and want to present your own competing analysis, fine. That's the whole point of the Debate forum. What I do have a problem with is you saying that our arguments are automatically wrong because you have the erroneous impression that any expression of incredulity is a fallacy. You are using this to avoid debate. Like just now in the other thread.

Do you accept Muehlenkamp's claim that only 15 kg of wood were needed per body?

I have no idea if that is correct or not. The guessing and estimations are merely that and experiments are way off the reality of cremating thousands of all ready decaying corpses at a time. My point is that the truth is more reliably established from the evidence, not argument over wood reqirements for outdoor cremations. Only revisionists disagree with that.

This is unresponsive. It basically goes back to your whole "it was possible because it happened" circular reasoning.

[Archie]

Now, how about you email a philosophy professor that exchange and get their opinion?

Professors will say something similar to the AI since that's in fact the normal understanding of "argument from incredulity." Your version of it is overly broad and fails to distinguish incredulity and rational incredulity. It's on you to defend your weird version. Go find one other person (who isn't a complete idiot) who is willing to endorse your version. I'll wait.

[Nessie]

And of course he doubles down, even though he's obviously wrong.

"False analogy," he says. Except no "analogies" were offered.

Analogies have been offered, such as Santa Claus, to make the point that it is acceptable to be sceptical about something that is physically impossible.

The point here is to understand the appeal to incredulity in general. The AI, which I'm using as an independent arbiter here, explains the distinction between simple incredulity without any support and justifiable skepticism based on data and reasoning. This is the distinction that everyone else understands but that you refuse to understand. You simply assume a priori that revisioning reasoning is invalid.

Your argument from incredulity, is not, as you think, supported by justifiable scepticism. That is why the Santa analogy you have used, is a false analogy. You are comparing something that is physically impossible, a flying sleigh delivering presents around the world, with something that is possible, Germans designing and operating a gas chambers.

Let me be clear. You do not have to agree with the arguments revisionists make. But you must engage with those arguments, not dismiss them out of hand. If we say a witness is not reliable because of X, Y, Z and you want to give a reasoned response explaining why you think the witness is reliable, go right ahead.

That is what I do, a lot, linking to studies that prove the witness is exaggerating, or mistaken, rather than lying. You then ignore that, which is wrong on your part. You need to engage with my points about witnesses and their behaviour, but you do not want to, because if you admit the witness is exaggerating about how many fitted inside the gas chambers, rather than lying gassings happened, then you lose your claim of no gassings.

Or if we say that Treblinka going through 1,000 tons of wood per day to cremate bodies is not realistic and you disagree and want to present your own competing analysis, fine. That's the whole point of the Debate forum.

When you do that, and declare no pyres, because you find it too incredible to believe, or cannot work out how the pyres were fuelled, you are committing the fallacy of argument from incredulity, as AI pointed out to you.

What I do have a problem with is you saying that our arguments are automatically wrong because you have the erroneous impression that any expression of incredulity is a fallacy.

I do not have that impression, that is yet another mistake on your part. I have clearly said it is acceptable to be incredulous about an incredible claim about mass pyres. I have also explained, at great length, that the truthfulness of the incredible claim cannot be determined by arguing over quantities of wood. It can only be reliably determined by gathering evidence to establish if mass pyres happened or not.

You are using this to avoid debate. Like just now in the other thread.

Do you accept Muehlenkamp's claim that only 15 kg of wood were needed per body?

I have no idea if that is correct or not. The guessing and estimations are merely that and experiments are way off the reality of cremating thousands of all ready decaying corpses at a time. My point is that the truth is more reliably established from the evidence, not argument over wood reqirements for outdoor cremations. Only revisionists disagree with that.

This is unresponsive. It basically goes back to your whole "it was possible because it happened" circular reasoning.

It is not circular reasoning to say pyres were possible, because of the corroborating evidence they happened. I am not using the premise as the conclusion, I am not going back on myself. The method I use is liner, a methodical gathering of evidence.
A claim is made that something happened. I then look for evidence to determine if the claim is correct or not.

In the case of mass pyres, I look to who made the earliest reports, which were local Poles living near the camps who reported months of burning. They were then corroborated by escaped prisoners. Those two groups were then corroborated by Polish site examinations that found large areas of buried cremated remains. The two groups and the first set of site examiners were then corroborated by Nazis who had worked at the camps, who admitted to the pyres. The circumstantial evidence of an action to cremate corpses at numerous sites where the Nazis had conducted mass killings, provides more corroboration again. The motive, of covering up a criminal act, has been established. Finally, a second set of site examinations again evidences large areas of cremated remains and disturbed ground.

That volume of evidence proves mass pyres. It does not matter that you cannot work out where the wood came from, or how much was needed. Your opinions are not evidential. They do not reliable determine if the pyres happened.

[Nessie]

Now, how about you email a philosophy professor that exchange and get their opinion?

Professors will say something similar to the AI since that's in fact the normal understanding of "argument from incredulity." Your version of it is overly broad and fails to distinguish incredulity and rational incredulity. It's on you to defend your weird version. Go find one other person (who isn't a complete idiot) who is willing to endorse your version. I'll wait.

Santa, rational incredulity. What is claimed is impossible and is not evidenced to have happened.

Germans building gas chambers and mass pyres, irrational incredulity. What is claimed is possible and it is evidenced to have happened.

The reason why you incorrectly think that it is physically impossible for the Germans to have built gas chambers and mass pyres, is because you are over reliant on witness descriptions, and fail to understand the expected errors and exaggerations that they will have made when they describe what they saw. That leads you to make the extraordinary claim that 100% of the witnesses is lying, a claim you deny you have made, but when asked to name a witness you gave one who describes the mass gassings in detail!

You also that incredulity applies to the revisionist claims.

I am incredulous that 100% of witnesses would, over many decades, under different circumstances, all lie and maintain that lie. The scale of lying is huge and for no one to even mistakenly blow the lie, is incredible. It is also incredible that all the Nazis, including those safe in South America and those tried by Germans in Germany, when it was in their interests to blow the lie, did not do so. The Nazis knew they were being accused of running death camps in 1942, yet they did nothing to blow that supposed lie.

I am incredulous that instead of being gassed, millions of Jews were resettled in the east, so that by the end of 1944, there were millions of Jews in Nazi captivity, and millions were liberated in 1945, all without any evidence of that happening. The east should have been littered with camps the size of A-B, or ghettos remaining open till the war's end, to accommodate so many people. The resources needed to guard and feed them would have been significant. But there is no evidence of that taking place.

What revisionists allege, in terms of a hoax, is off the scale and physically impossible to achieve. My incredulity is rational.

[Nazgul]

I have clearly said it is acceptable to be incredulous about an incredible claim about mass pyres. I have also explained, at great length, that the truthfulness of the incredible claim cannot be determined by arguing over quantities of wood. It can only be reliably determined by gathering evidence to establish if mass pyres happened or not.

This is absolute nonsense. The energy required for human cremation typically ranges from 1,400 to 2,500 megajoules (MJ), depending on various factors such as the size of the body, the efficiency of the cremation equipment, and the type of fuel used.
quora

Open air pyres are very inefficient so the energy needed is at the higher value if not higher. Bodies are not exothermic due to the huge amount of water in them. A trillion people can testify that they saw a body burn with a few logs of wood, but that is impossible.

I am incredulous that instead of being gassed, millions of Jews were resettled in the east, so that by the end of 1944, there were millions of Jews in Nazi captivity, and millions were liberated in 1945

Over a million went east and then returned as the war changed. There are enough survivors to confirm this. Most Jews worked in Labour Camps after returning. They were not liberated but walked out like miss X and the rest of her peers.

Studies have shown that mistaken eyewitness testimony accounts for about half of all wrongful convictions.

[Archie]

The reason why you incorrectly think that it is physically impossible for the Germans to have built gas chambers and mass pyres...

Please quote where I argued that it's "impossible" to build gas chambers and pyres.

Also, please review the answers where it says that rejecting things that are implausible is also not "argument from incredulity fallacy." The AI explicitly mentioned "probabilistic skepticism" and says it's valid and rational.

Given that you are incapable of real debate and lack even the most basic reasoning skills or reading comprehension, I'm not sure how much longer we should allow you to post here. My concern is that your weird beliefs do not really represent the mainstream or anti-revisionist positions very well and it is frankly a waste of time to argue back and forth over positions that ONLY YOU are uninformed and stubborn enough to hold.

[Nessie]

The reason why you incorrectly think that it is physically impossible for the Germans to have built gas chambers and mass pyres...

Please quote where I argued that it's "impossible" to build gas chambers and pyres.

You have not argued that. You have used Santa as an analogy, which is false and you have argued that the witnesses are describing gassings that are impossible, therefore they lied, which is an illogical argument.

Also, please review the answers where it says that rejecting things that are implausible is also not "argument from incredulity fallacy." The AI explicitly mentioned "probabilistic skepticism" and says it's valid and rational.

I have and pointed out, and you accept, that it is not impossible to build gas chambers. That means revisionist scepticism about gas chambers existing is greatly weakened, as their scepticism is based only on the way witnesses describe the gassings.

Given that you are incapable of real debate and lack even the most basic reasoning skills or reading comprehension, I'm not sure how much longer we should allow you to post here. My concern is that your weird beliefs do not really represent the mainstream or anti-revisionist positions very well and it is frankly a waste of time to argue back and forth over positions that ONLY YOU are uninformed and stubborn enough to hold.

I am perfectly capable of "real debate" and possess the logical or reasoning skills to put together a cogent argument. The issue is that you want to restrict debate to where you think you are strongest and are hardest to attack, such as arguing over how much wood is needed for a mass pyre, rather than why such argument is pointless and of no evidential use.

My belief, that we should follow the evidence and even if it is incredible, if it is evidenced to have happened, then that is the history we should accept, is hardly weird. Your demand that we disbelieve what is evidenced to have happened, in favour of unevidenced claims that involve belief in something that is utterly incredible, is weird.

You want to stop me from challenge revisionism at its weakest.

[Archie]

Here is what I mean by "real debate."

Suppose I argue: X is false for reasons A, B, C, D, E, and F.

In normal debate, if you disagree with my conclusion you would dispute my reasons and perhaps offer your own reasons for the opposite conclusion.

What you do is to say that we aren't allowed to argue that X is false because that would be incredulity and therefore you don't think you need to address any of the points raised.