Critiquing evidence is not a fallacy.

[Nessie]

Archie has claimed that I said critiquing evidence is a fallacy. He failed to evidence that claim, with any quotes and ironically it is a fallacy, that of straw man, as he is misrepresenting what I have said. So, to make it abundantly clear,

Critiquing evidence is not a fallacy.

The issue Archie is trying to evade, is that how evidence is critiqued is important. The method of criticism, the way the evidence is assessed, needs to be as accurate as possible. Methodology and epistemology cannot be ignored. Revisionists refuse to debate how they assess the evidence, often censoring such. Hence, this thread is in the quarantine section of the forum.

A flawed critique will likely produce a flawed result. For example, a flawed critique of a witness statement could result in the witness being accused of lying, when they were telling the truth. If a witness claims that 2000 people fitted inside a space that could not have held that number of people, it is wrong to dismiss that witness for lying. Studies have found that people are often poor at estimations of the size of crowds and the dimensions of spaces, so that the witness could have overestimated the number of people, underestimated the size of the space, or both. That they could have made a mistake, means they are not proven to have lied.

It is not a fallacy to critique the interpretation of a document. When a document refers to the pouring of concrete in a gas chamber in Krema IV at Birkenau, and a claim is made that document is referring to a homicidal gas chamber, it is not necessarily a fallacy to dispute that claim. It becomes a fallacy, when it is claimed the document cannot be referring to homicidal gas chambers, because such gas chambers are not credible and cannot have existed because how they were ventilated cannot have worked. That is the argument from incredulity. If evidence was traced, such as a witness who worked at Krema IV, who stated that the gas chamber was never used, or it was only used to delouse clothes, then it would not be fallacious to critique the homicidal interpretation.

Holocaust historians critique each other's interpretation of the evidence, such as the intentionalists versus the functionalists. There is no fallacy, when one historian claims that how another has interpreted the evidence regarding the evolution and planning of the Holocaust, is wrong.

What Archie and the rest cannot face up to, is that regularly, but not always, their critiquing of the evidence, is flawed and they really, really hate having that pointed out to them.

[TlsMS93]

I prefer to stick to the final result: was it gonocide? Where are the bodies? There aren't any; they were cremated. Where? In the same mass graves where they were buried. Great, let's exhume and count them. No, that desecrates the dead. End of debate.

[Keen]

Archie has claimed that I said critiquing evidence is a fallacy. He failed to evidence that claim

Like you failed to substantiate this allegation:

The Nazis were not trying to magically disappear the corpses and the graves.

All the mass graves dug by the Nazis, and the corpses they cremated, are still at the AR camps.

Mass graves are proven. By all normal standards of evidencing, they are proven.

I can point to them in the ground.

We're still waiting for you to point to these nesserto:

[Nessie]

I prefer to stick to the final result: was it gonocide? Where are the bodies? There aren't any; they were cremated. Where? In the same mass graves where they were buried. Great, let's exhume and count them. No, that desecrates the dead. End of debate.

Your critiquing of the archaeological evidence is flawed. You are biased, as you refuse to acknowledge the finds of large areas of buried cremated remains, in exactly the parts of the camps the eyewitnesses said the cremains were buried in. The evidence is that they were not just buried back into the original mass graves. The finds of buried ashes are more random than that and original mass graves have been identified as having little cremated remains in them.

You also do not show exactly how the site could be dug up, sifted, cremains separated from ash and earth and then the cremains quantified, or why that level of desecration is necessary. Would you call for WWI cemeteries to be dug up, to do a body count, to establish exactly how many are buried there?

You are a very good example, along with Kean, who is bound to be spamming the thread with his insults and demands, of critiquing that is not fallacious, but it is flawed.

[Nazgul]

Your critiquing of the archaeological evidence is flawed. You are biased, as you refuse to acknowledge the finds of large areas of buried cremated remains, in exactly the parts of the camps the eyewitnesses said the cremains were buried in.

Quantitative limitations of cremated remains in site analysis

1. Presence of cremated remains confirms deposition; it does not determine total quantity.
2. Spatial distribution is often diffuse; correlation with original mass graves cannot resolve total counts.
3. Extraction, separation, and quantification of cremains at scale is destructive and ethically constrained; therefore, comprehensive recovery is not feasible.
4. Sampling methods impose variance; error propagates from incomplete recovery and uneven deposition.
5. Archaeological evidence can corroborate location and existence of cremains but does not provide statistically robust numeric totals without independent, high-resolution measurement.
6. Any numeric inference must explicitly incorporate uncertainty derived from sampling variance and methodological constraints.

The math.

Statistical formulation of cremated remains quantification.pdf

(94.66 KiB) Downloaded 5 times

[Nessie]

Nazgul, since I am back in quarantine...

https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=21934#p21934

Nessie wrote: ↑Thu Feb 05, 2026 7:39 am
The Nazis knew that a mass grave, in its normal state, is eminently falsifiable. So they made that much harder to do. It is universal within any criminal justice system, to regard tampering with, hiding or destroying evidence as a criminal act and the act of criminals.

There are a few clear flaws here. First, calling historical events “not falsifiable” misuses the concept—it applies to predictive theories, not past events. Second, assuming intent to hide evidence isn’t always backed by direct documentation. Third, focusing only on mass graves ignores other forms of evidence, like transport records. Finally, comparing Katyn to AR camps ignores major differences in context, and absence of evidence doesn’t automatically mean an event didn’t happen.

Callafangers came up with the idea that because he thinks much of the history of the Holocaust is not falsifiable, that means the presently accepted historical narrative, that involves mass gassings, cremations and graves, is not sound. It is an attempt to argue the Holocaust did not happen, since he cannot evidence it did not happen.

Your reply does not explain how my claim is flawed. It is a proven fact that the Nazis exhumed mass graves and cremated corpses, which prevented body counts, identification and establishing the cause of death. Anyone who tampers with buried remains, without official permission, is committing a crime, let alone when the tampering is to cover up what was done.

[Nazgul]

Your reply does not explain how my claim is flawed. It is a proven fact that the Nazis exhumed mass graves and cremated corpses, which prevented body counts, identification and establishing the cause of death. Anyone who tampers with buried remains, without official permission, is committing a crime, let alone when the tampering is to cover up what was done.

Sorry to hear you back in the sin bin Nessie. I should have used the word weakness not flaws, perhaps over reach. The post I responded to had some very good points.
Strengths of the argument

Logical consistency: The post correctly identifies that deliberate destruction or concealment of evidence reduces falsifiability. This is a methodologically valid point.

Comparative reasoning: Using Katyn as an example highlights that mass graves are, in principle, falsifiable when left undisturbed.

Evidence-based expectation: The idea that perpetrators might attempt to conceal or destroy evidence is aligned with forensic and criminal investigation principles.



Here are the weaknesses:

Misuse of “falsifiability”:
Historical events are not scientific hypotheses; Popperian falsifiability applies to predictive theories. Claiming an event is “not falsifiable” is conceptually flawed.

Assumption of intent without direct evidence:
The post assumes Nazis deliberately hid or destroyed evidence to prevent falsification. While plausible, this is not directly documented in every case cited.

Overgeneralization from mass graves:
The argument treats mass graves as the sole or primary evidence, ignoring other independent forms of verification (eyewitness accounts, transport records, demographic reconstruction).

False equivalence in comparative example:
Comparing Katyn to AR camps assumes similar operational, political, and logistical contexts. Differences in circumstances limit the validity of this analogy.

Implied causation from evidence absence:
Suggesting that concealed or disturbed grounds automatically weaken historical claims misinterprets absence of evidence as evidence of absence.

[Nessie]

Your reply does not explain how my claim is flawed. It is a proven fact that the Nazis exhumed mass graves and cremated corpses, which prevented body counts, identification and establishing the cause of death. Anyone who tampers with buried remains, without official permission, is committing a crime, let alone when the tampering is to cover up what was done.

Sorry to hear you back in the sin bin Nessie. I should have used the word weakness not flaws, perhaps over reach. The post I responded to had some very good points.
Strengths of the argument

Logical consistency: The post correctly identifies that deliberate destruction or concealment of evidence reduces falsifiability. This is a methodologically valid point.

Comparative reasoning: Using Katyn as an example highlights that mass graves are, in principle, falsifiable when left undisturbed.

Evidence-based expectation: The idea that perpetrators might attempt to conceal or destroy evidence is aligned with forensic and criminal investigation principles.



Here are the weaknesses:

Misuse of “falsifiability”:
Historical events are not scientific hypotheses; Popperian falsifiability applies to predictive theories. Claiming an event is “not falsifiable” is conceptually flawed.

Any references to Popper's falsifiabilty, have been originally generated by Callafangers. Ignore Popper and theoretical thinking, and understand that in practice, any historical narrative can be falsified, by revising it.

Assumption of intent without direct evidence:
The post assumes Nazis deliberately hid or destroyed evidence to prevent falsification. While plausible, this is not directly documented in every case cited.

There is evidence, from witnesses and documents, that the switch from burial to cremations and the exhumation of mass graves to cremate the corpses, was to destroy evidence. We know details about the operation, codenamed Sonderaction 1005. There is also evidence of wholesale destruction of documents relating to the operation of the AR camps and Chelmno. So, no assumption has been made, that the Nazis destroyed evidence. We know it was done, because they were losing the war, they knew they were being accused of mass murder and they wanted to avoid being held responsible.

Overgeneralization from mass graves:
The argument treats mass graves as the sole or primary evidence, ignoring other independent forms of verification (eyewitness accounts, transport records, demographic reconstruction).

You are cherry-picking one post out of a number of posts in a thread. The falsification argument applies to any and all evidence that is used to build a historical narrative.

False equivalence in comparative example:
Comparing Katyn to AR camps assumes similar operational, political, and logistical contexts. Differences in circumstances limit the validity of this analogy.

The comparison to Katyn, was to emphasise how destruction of evidence can make falsification harder. That is all.

Implied causation from evidence absence:
Suggesting that concealed or disturbed grounds automatically weaken historical claims misinterprets absence of evidence as evidence of absence.

You are drifting away from the point I made. To get back on topic, this is an example of a critique of the evidence that is not fallacious. Discussing the quantity and form of the disturbed ground at the AR camps is not logically flawed. Archie's original claim is wrong. That is why he will avoid posting in this thread.

[Nazgul]

You are cherry-picking one post out of a number of posts in a thread. The falsification argument applies to any and all evidence that is used to build a historical narrative.

Falsifiability applies to scientific theories that make predictions, not to historical evidence. Historical claims are verified through corroboration, consistency, and multiple sources—not Popper-style experiments. Treating all historical evidence as “falsifiable or invalid” is a category error.

[Nessie]

You are cherry-picking one post out of a number of posts in a thread. The falsification argument applies to any and all evidence that is used to build a historical narrative.

Falsifiability applies to scientific theories that make predictions, not to historical evidence. Historical claims are verified through corroboration, consistency, and multiple sources—not Popper-style experiments. Treating all historical evidence as “falsifiable or invalid” is a category error.

A reminder, you need to lecture callafangers, not me, about his use of Popper. Falsification in history is usually referred to as revision. Callafanger misuses Popper to suggest the evidence of gassings, cremations and graves is not valid. I pointed out to him that if he actually wants to revise the history, he needs evidence gassings etc did not take place and what did.

I am only responding to your off topic posts, as they help to prove Archie wrong, when he claimed that I have said the critiquing of evidence is a fallacy.

[Nazgul]

A reminder, you need to lecture callafangers, not me, about his use of Popper. Falsification in history is usually referred to as revision. Callafanger misuses Popper to suggest the evidence of gassings, cremations and graves is not valid. I pointed out to him that if he actually wants to revise the history, he needs evidence gassings etc did not take place and what did.

I have already discussed this with Fangers Nessie. As I mentioned, if you take the time to read my other posts, gassings are not necessary to consider. My focus is on the broader calamity: roughly 70 million who perished in that conflict, or about 95 million if the preceding war is included as part of a single, extended event, despite the hiatus between them. While some estimates suggest that a loss of 6 million people falls within the uncertainty range of these aggregate figures, it is important to stress that any loss of life is unacceptable, and every individual death represents a human tragedy, regardless of the statistical framing.

[Nessie]

An on topic response from Archie would be appreciated. Will he evidence his claim that I think the critiquing of evidence is fallacious? Or will he admit he is wrong?

[Archie]

An on topic response from Archie would be appreciated. Will he evidence his claim that I think the critiquing of evidence is fallacious? Or will he admit he is wrong?

You've picked up a few names of fallacies, and, ironically, it has completely fried your brain and rendered you incapable of reasoned debate. Anyone who has read your drivel on the forums over the years knows that you see "arguments from incredulity" lurking behind every bush. I am not going to waste my time trawling through your post history to document this. And I'm not going to explain to you yet again why your are wrong about this since I have been explaining it to you for probably five years and if you haven't understood by now you never will.

If you want to participate on the Debate board, you need to bring with SPECIFICS. You need to address the points that are brought up. Saying "that's incredulity" doesn't address anything and is not an acceptable rebuttal. Over and over, you have cluttered up threads on topics like Prussian blue or ventilation that you know nothing about. In essence, you claim that you don't need to address specifics because the Holocaust is "evidenced" and you think it's a fallacy to question that "the evidence."

"Just because revisionists can't work out how it happened ..."

[TlsMS93]

"Just because revisionists can't work out how it happened ..."

This guy thinks the Holocaust is like a physics equation.

In science, there are theories and models, like the formation of the moon, the solar system, galaxies, and even the universe. Each one is supported by well-established physical models. Is it absolute truth? No, the best and most accepted models still have much to explain.

In the case of the Holocaust, is the evidence offered beyond any reasonable doubt? Far from it. If they cannot precisely establish how the bodies were disposed of satisfactorily, the question remains in the realm of plausibility. It's plausible to cremate millions of bodies and gas them beforehand, but for the equation, clear elements are needed to establish a truth that is not entirely clear, since it's impossible, but from a historiographical point of view, it's far from being questioned.

Exterminationists claim that almost 1 million were killed in Treblinka; we maintain that a fraction of that number died there. Based on the evidence we have, which one is closer to the truth? Furthermore, was this search meticulous or limited due to concerns about desecration and cancel culture?

[Stubble]

They can't even establish where the bodies came from. They just have nebulous statistical cohorts generated by various means. Just counting train cars is one method, and, I'm not even sure they actually did that. Didn't Vrba deduce that something like 750,000 Hungarian jews were 'gassed at Auschwitz' using that method, I'll go check.