Examples of the argument from incredulity.

[Archie]

Nessie's mistaken interpretation of "argument from incredulity" is so broad it would apply to countless well-reasoned scholarly arguments if he were to apply his rules consistently (which he doesn't).

Here's a random example from Kramer's The Sumerians: Their History, Culture, and Character.

In 1850 Hincks read a paper before the British Association for the Advancement of Science in which he expressed some doubts concerning the general assumption that it was the Semitic inhabitants of Assyria and Babylonia who had invented the cuneiform system of writing, which they utilized. In the Semitic languages the stable element is the consonant, while the vowel is extremely variable. It seemed unnatural, therefore, that the Semites should invent a syllabic system of orthography in which the vowel seemed to be as unchanging as the consonant. The distinction between soft and hard palatals and dentals is a significant feature of the Semitic langauges, but the cuneiform syllabary did not seem to express this distinction adequately. Then, too, if the Semites had invented the cuneiform script, it should be possible to trace teh syllabic values of the signs to Semitic words. But this was rarely the case; the great majority of the syllabic values for the cuneiform signs seemed to go back to words or elements for which no Semitic equivalent could be found. Hincks thus begant o suspect that the cuneiform system of writing was invented by some non-Semitic people who had preceded the Semites in Babylonia.

Words like "express doubt" and "it seemed unnatural" are, in Nessie's mind, sure-fire triggers for "argument from incredulity!" "Just because you think it's "unnatural" for speakers of a Semitic language to come up with that sort of syllabic writing system ..." Except it is unnatural and this Hincks guy was completely correct. Not only were Hincks's arguments not fallacious, they are examples of sensible and rigorous scholarship. If Nessie read any sort of scholarship (he doesn't even read Holocaust scholarship) he would realize this.

If we were to treat all probabilistic judgments as "fallacious" this would render scholarship essentially impossible.

[HansHill]

If we were to treat all probabilistic judgments as "fallacious" this would render scholarship essentially impossible.

Imagine this mode of thinking in literally any other circumstance.

Nessie at a job interview: “Just because you cannot work out why I am hireable doesn’t mean you should not hire me”

Nessie as a prosecution attorney: “ladies and gentlemen of the jury - Just because you cannot work out how the suspect committed the crime doesnt mean he is innocent”

Nessie as an architect instructing a team of civil engineers: “Just because you cannot work out how to construct this infrastructure safely and under budget doesn’t mean you should stop”

Nessie as runner up for Best Lead Performance at the Oscars: “Just because you cannot work out how I am the best actor doesn’t mean I don’t deserve my Oscar”

Nessie after losing 10 - 0 in the World Cup: “Just because you can’t work out how i scored 11 goals without anybody noticing doesn’t mean i lost the game”

[Nessie]

Nessie's mistaken interpretation of "argument from incredulity" is so broad it would apply to countless well-reasoned scholarly arguments if he were to apply his rules consistently (which he doesn't).

Here's a random example from Kramer's The Sumerians: Their History, Culture, and Character.

In 1850 Hincks read a paper before the British Association for the Advancement of Science in which he expressed some doubts concerning the general assumption that it was the Semitic inhabitants of Assyria and Babylonia who had invented the cuneiform system of writing, which they utilized. In the Semitic languages the stable element is the consonant, while the vowel is extremely variable. It seemed unnatural, therefore, that the Semites should invent a syllabic system of orthography in which the vowel seemed to be as unchanging as the consonant. The distinction between soft and hard palatals and dentals is a significant feature of the Semitic langauges, but the cuneiform syllabary did not seem to express this distinction adequately. Then, too, if the Semites had invented the cuneiform script, it should be possible to trace teh syllabic values of the signs to Semitic words. But this was rarely the case; the great majority of the syllabic values for the cuneiform signs seemed to go back to words or elements for which no Semitic equivalent could be found. Hincks thus begant o suspect that the cuneiform system of writing was invented by some non-Semitic people who had preceded the Semites in Babylonia.

Words like "express doubt" and "it seemed unnatural" are, in Nessie's mind, sure-fire triggers for "argument from incredulity!" "Just because you think it's "unnatural" for speakers of a Semitic language to come up with that sort of syllabic writing system ..." Except it is unnatural and this Hincks guy was completely correct. Not only were Hincks's arguments not fallacious, they are examples of sensible and rigorous scholarship. If Nessie read any sort of scholarship (he doesn't even read Holocaust scholarship) he would realize this.

If we were to treat all probabilistic judgments as "fallacious" this would render scholarship essentially impossible.

Those words do indeed suggest it is possible the argument from incredulity is being used. Or, it is the expression of a reasoned doubt. For example, Gerstein is considered, by historians, to not be that credible a witness. They have expressed doubts about the reliability and accuracy of his evidence, as he is known to have made mistakes. Those historians are not using the argument from incredulity, because they do not then go on to conclude that Gerstein is a liar and nothing he claimed about gassings happened.

You do not use "sensible and rigorous scholarship" when you critique the witnesses, such as Gerstein. Instead, you ignore all the scientific studies on witnesses and claim, contrary to what is evidenced to have taken place, that he lied and there were never any gas chambers at the camps he visited. Historians use "sensible and rigorous scholarship", by identifying flaws in his evidence and assessing his worth as an accurate witness.

Doubting something is not a fallacy, it is what you do with that doubt that makes the fallacy.

[Nessie]

If we were to treat all probabilistic judgments as "fallacious" this would render scholarship essentially impossible.

Imagine this mode of thinking in literally any other circumstance.

Nessie at a job interview: “Just because you cannot work out why I am hireable doesn’t mean you should not hire me”

Nessie as a prosecution attorney: “ladies and gentlemen of the jury - Just because you cannot work out how the suspect committed the crime doesnt mean he is innocent”

Nessie as an architect instructing a team of civil engineers: “Just because you cannot work out how to construct this infrastructure safely and under budget doesn’t mean you should stop”

Nessie as runner up for Best Lead Performance at the Oscars: “Just because you cannot work out how I am the best actor doesn’t mean I don’t deserve my Oscar”

Nessie after losing 10 - 0 in the World Cup: “Just because you can’t work out how i scored 11 goals without anybody noticing doesn’t mean i lost the game”

Straw men examples.

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?

[HansHill]

I suppose technically you could call these straw man arguments; only i’m not debating you I’m mocking your misuse of them.

Lets flip this around, since this is a thread about examples of the argument from incredulity and since i’m such a simpleton and cannot understand how gassings took place; who can work it out? Point me to whichever expert it is that you feel has accounted for the lack of PB formation in Krema II.

Wow me!

(PS i’m half expecting you to say Markiewicz and I am feeling charitable so please do the bare minimum of research and review the recent “Sanity Check” thread where Dr Terry all but throws Markiewicz under the bus)

[Nessie]

I suppose technically you could call these straw man arguments; only i’m not debating you I’m mocking your misuse of them.

Lets flip this around, since this is a thread about examples of the argument from incredulity and since i’m such a simpleton and cannot understand how gassings took place; who can work it out? Point me to whichever expert it is that you feel has accounted for the lack of PB formation in Krema II.

Wow me!

(PS i’m half expecting you to say Markiewicz and I am feeling charitable so please do the bare minimum of research and review the recent “Sanity Check” thread where Dr Terry all but throws Markiewicz under the bus)

You are blatantly trying to take this thread off topic. To remain on topic, 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?

[Stubble]

Nessie, the lack of Iron Blues is a lack of color on the palette leaving a lack of color on the painting.

Other colors are missing.

The only colors you throw at the canvas are Black (misread documents) and white (witness testimony). Literally every other color on the picture you present is missing. No records of maintenance to the Kremas congruent with the mass murder. No evidence of mass pyres on the scale alleged. No Iron Blues. No demonstrable evidence of the missing actually being missing.

You have absolutely nothing.

You pretend this is just about the Iron Blues, but, you are deluding yourself. You have literally nothing of substance to present in favor of your claim.

[Nessie]

Nessie, the lack of Iron Blues is a lack of color on the palette leaving a lack of color on the painting.

Other colors are missing.

The only colors you throw at the canvas are Black (misread documents) and white (witness testimony). Literally every other color on the picture you present is missing. No records of maintenance to the Kremas congruent with the mass murder. No evidence of mass pyres on the scale alleged. No Iron Blues. No demonstrable evidence of the missing actually being missing.

You have absolutely nothing.

You pretend this is just about the Iron Blues, but, you are deluding yourself. You have literally nothing of substance to present in favor of your claim.

Your pretence that there is no evidence, for the gassings or pyres, is not a logical fallacy. It is just you lying to yourself.

I don't expect you to be able to explain how your disbelief in the evidence for gassings and pyres, is proof that there were no gassings or pyres.

[Stubble]

Show me the evidence for mass cremation pyre(s) at Auschwitz Nessie.

Show me.

[Archie]

Those words do indeed suggest it is possible the argument from incredulity is being used. Or, it is the expression of a reasoned doubt.

Just to be clear, do you think what I quoted is a fallacy? Or no?

[Archie]

This argument against the reality of the Santa Claus story is fallacious according to Nessie's interpretation:

"That Santa could deliver billions of presents in one night would require him to deliver thousands of presents per second which is just totally unbelievable."

This would be "trying to work out" how Santa could deliver so many presents which is not allowed, according to Nessie.

[HansHill]

Santa deniers always seem to forget that he literally freezes time.

Checkmate.

[Keen]

Both Stubble and Kean are unable, or unwilling to consider that they may be wrong

Nesserto:

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.

Point to a "huge mass grave" in either Belzec, Chelmno, Ponary, Sobibor or Treblinka II that contains more human remains than the mass grave on the right:



What are you waiting for roberto?

What are you so afraid of?

[Keen]

If we were to treat all probabilistic judgments as "fallacious" this would render scholarship essentially impossible.

Imagine this mode of thinking in literally any other circumstance.

Nessie at a job interview: “Just because you cannot work out why I am hireable doesn’t mean you should not hire me”

Nessie as a prosecution attorney: “ladies and gentlemen of the jury - Just because you cannot work out how the suspect committed the crime doesnt mean he is innocent”

Nessie as an architect instructing a team of civil engineers: “Just because you cannot work out how to construct this infrastructure safely and under budget doesn’t mean you should stop”

Nessie as runner up for Best Lead Performance at the Oscars: “Just because you cannot work out how I am the best actor doesn’t mean I don’t deserve my Oscar”

Nessie after losing 10 - 0 in the World Cup: “Just because you can’t work out how i scored 11 goals without anybody noticing doesn’t mean i lost the game”

[Nessie]

Those words do indeed suggest it is possible the argument from incredulity is being used. Or, it is the expression of a reasoned doubt.

Just to be clear, do you think what I quoted is a fallacy? Or no?

If Hincks concluded that the Semitics had not invented cuneiform system purely on his doubts, then yes. If he presented evidence to show it was uncertain that they had, then no.