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

[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.

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.

There are multiple errors here. Even if your conclusions happened to be correct, you would be wrong on the logic.

1) You are doing the whole "it happened; therefore, it was possible" thing. On this forum, we don't assume that it happened. That is the proposition that we are arguing. You are begging the question.

2) If I analyze the cremation capacity of a camp using data from other concentration camps, data on the coke deliveries, and other available evidence, there is nothing wrong per se with that sort of analysis. Such arguments are standard in any sort of "debunking." Not only is there nothing wrong with this, this is precisely how you investigate such claims rigorously. In particular instances, such analysis could be good quality or sloppy. Some assumptions may be disputed or uncertain. But even a totally incompetent analysis would not be a "fallacy." If there is a disagreement, it would be over the specifics of the analysis, the assumptions, the data, not the logic. You should be presenting your own alternative analysis and explaining why yours is superior, not doing nothing and saying that doing research is a fallacy. How do you think the mainstream made all their corrections to the story? They did analysis that is not really so different from what revisionists do (it's really just a question of degree).

3) If I say a testimony has major errors and contradictions and you say the errors are minor, then we have a disagreement. But once again the disagreement is not over the logical structure of the argument. The issue would be over what constitutes a reasonable vs an unreasonable error. And again even if you ended up being right and I was wrong, the issue would be over the details which you don't think need to be discussed. Even if your analysis of the testimonies were correct and mine were wrong, you would still be wrong about the logic.

Nessie, the reason I can tell you do not understand logic at all is that you conflate "fallacy" with "being wrong," and this fundamental misunderstanding leads you to cry "fallacy" every time you disagree with something. "All pigs are pink. All pink things can fly. Therefore, pigs can fly." This is logically valid. It's not a fallacy. The conclusion is wrong because there is an incorrect premise. The logic is not the issue here. In all of your prattle about logic, I don't recall you ever saying "premise." That is another tell that you don't know what you're talking about. Often disagreements are over premises, not logical structure. And, incidentally, the so-called "fallacies" generally don't have much to do with formal logic. Most of them are "informal" fallacies that are common in imprecise verbal arguments, and they don't involve any true deductive errors. The idea is that they sound superficially convincing but without providing much actual support for the conclusion.

[Archie]

Nessie likes to talk about evidence all the time, but in fact he is against gathering evidence and doing any further investigation into the Holocaust.

Leuchter, Rudolf and other revisionists had the idea of taking samples from the walls to test for cyanide. They took those samples. THIS IS EVIDENCE. That's data that we can use to inform our conclusion.

Mattogno gathered a ton of documentary evidence on the cremation ovens in the concentration camps. And he did a bunch of general research on cremation. THIS IS EVIDENCE. This is highly relevant data. It's undeniably relevant.

When revisionists gather such data, Nessie claims that this is fallacy because we are "trying to work out whether it could have happened." We don't need to that because the witnesses have already told us and we can take that as gospel!

[Nessie]

....

There are multiple errors here. Even if your conclusions happened to be correct, you would be wrong on the logic.

1) You are doing the whole "it happened; therefore, it was possible" thing. On this forum, we don't assume that it happened. That is the proposition that we are arguing. You are begging the question.

I don't assume it happened. I look to see what is evidenced sufficiently to prove what happened, you are wrong to claim that is begging the question.

2) If I analyze the cremation capacity of a camp using data from other concentration camps, data on the coke deliveries, and other available evidence, there is nothing wrong per se with that sort of analysis. Such arguments are standard in any sort of "debunking." Not only is there nothing wrong with this, this is precisely how you investigate such claims rigorously. In particular instances, such analysis could be good quality or sloppy. Some assumptions may be disputed or uncertain. But even a totally incompetent analysis would not be a "fallacy." If there is a disagreement, it would be over the specifics of the analysis, the assumptions, the data, not the logic. You should be presenting your own alternative analysis and explaining why yours is superior, not doing nothing and saying that doing research is a fallacy. How do you think the mainstream made all their corrections to the story? They did analysis that is not really so different from what revisionists do (it's really just a question of degree).

The problem with your analysis approach is the lack of data. Your approach would work, if there was complete, detailed data, but there is not. That means no one can really know if their analysis is correct or not, based only on the data. The only way to determine whose analysis is correct, is to look at the evidence of what happened. If mass cremations are proven to have happened, then there was enough coke.

Your incredulity about coke usage is wrong, because of the lack of data on coke and the evidence is clear that mass cremations took place.

3) If I say a testimony has major errors and contradictions and you say the errors are minor, then we have a disagreement. But once again the disagreement is not over the logical structure of the argument. The issue would be over what constitutes a reasonable vs an unreasonable error. And again even if you ended up being right and I was wrong, the issue would be over the details which you don't think need to be discussed. Even if your analysis of the testimonies were correct and mine were wrong, you would still be wrong about the logic.

Your analysis of the witness credibility is wrong, based on scientific studies and experimentation on witness behaviour, memory and recall.

Your incredulity about the witness descriptions is wrong, because you ignore the scientific studies that prove the descriptions are within what is expected from people remembering traumatic events, often decades later.

Nessie, the reason I can tell you do not understand logic at all is that you conflate "fallacy" with "being wrong," and this fundamental misunderstanding leads you to cry "fallacy" every time you disagree with something.

I only call out fallacy, when I see a fallacy being used. I see that revisionists are wholly dependent on fallacious arguments, because they cannot evidence what happened.

"All pigs are pink. All pink things can fly. Therefore, pigs can fly." This is logically valid. It's not a fallacy. The conclusion is wrong because there is an incorrect premise. The logic is not the issue here. In all of your prattle about logic, I don't recall you ever saying "premise." That is another tell that you don't know what you're talking about. Often disagreements are over premises, not logical structure. And, incidentally, the so-called "fallacies" generally don't have much to do with formal logic. Most of them are "informal" fallacies that are common in imprecise verbal arguments, and they don't involve any true deductive errors. The idea is that they sound superficially convincing but without providing much actual support for the conclusion.

A witness exaggerates, makes a mistake, says something that does not make sense, uses emotive descriptions and figures of speech or is inconsistent with another, and we do not have precise data on coke deliveries and usage. You use that to claim, by arguing that you have proven 100% of the witnesses who worked inside the Kremas lied. You cannot evidence they all lied and what really happened. Therefore, you have failed at the primary task of investigation.

[Nessie]

Nessie likes to talk about evidence all the time, but in fact he is against gathering evidence and doing any further investigation into the Holocaust.

That is a barefaced lie.

Leuchter, Rudolf and other revisionists had the idea of taking samples from the walls to test for cyanide. They took those samples. THIS IS EVIDENCE. That's data that we can use to inform our conclusion.

Robel and Markiewicz also took samples and you are correct, it is evidence, forensic evidence.

Mattogno gathered a ton of documentary evidence on the cremation ovens in the concentration camps. And he did a bunch of general research on cremation. THIS IS EVIDENCE. This is highly relevant data. It's undeniably relevant.

Again, correct and I use the documentary evidence gathered by Mattogno regularly.

When revisionists gather such data, Nessie claims that this is fallacy because we are "trying to work out whether it could have happened." We don't need to that because the witnesses have already told us and we can take that as gospel!

Wrong, that evidence is how to assess the witness claims. When a witness states a Krema had a gas chamber and a document records the construction of a gas chamber and testing finds traces of the gas used, the witness is corroborated.

The revisionist fallacy is to argue the witness is lying because they find their descriptions of gassing incredulous and think there is insufficient residue of the gas used, so they cannot work out how gassings were possible.

[HansHill]

This whole thread is going into the the Nessie Hall Of Fame for future generations to see. Glad to be a part of it.

To those reading in the future, while the Holocaust will have completely collapsed by the time you are reading this, we assure you - what you are reading was considered a serious topic in the early 21st century despite the farce.

[Archie]

The problem with your analysis approach is the lack of data. Your approach would work, if there was complete, detailed data, but there is not. That means no one can really know if their analysis is correct or not, based only on the data. The only way to determine whose analysis is correct, is to look at the evidence of what happened. If mass cremations are proven to have happened, then there was enough coke.

Your incredulity about coke usage is wrong, because of the lack of data on coke and the evidence is clear that mass cremations took place.

Oh, how convenient. There's no way we could ever figure anything out so let's just not check. Lmao. We can determine a great deal. What you are doing here is tactical epistemic ignorance.

There is considerable documentation on the coke deliveries and on coke usage at Auschwitz and at other camps like Gusen. This gives us some idea of how much coke was used per cremation and some idea of what the cremation capacity would have been over certain periods. The records are not complete, but you can't use that as an excuse to ignore very useful data.

"If mass cremations are proven to have happened, then there was enough coke."

Begging the question.

"Mass cremations" is vague. Auschwitz had around 135K registered deaths. That would be "mass" cremations. So saying "mass cremations are proven" doesn't settle anything since nobody says there were no cremations. What is disputed is whether 1.1M people were cremated at that camp. If there were death books that documented 1.1M cremations, you might have a point (although even in that case we should sanity check this.) But since we don't have that, this becomes a very technical question and there is no way to address it without looking at the data and doing some math. But you think doing math is a fallacy because that would be "trying to work out whether it could have happened" which you say is not allowed. Lol, that position is so ridiculous I can't even believe I'm having to explain this to you. Testimonies can be considered as well, but most of the testimonies claim things like 4 bodies at a time stuffed in each muffle, 20,000 bodies burned per day, etc. Some are not so ridiculous and those can be considered as well in combination with sources.

[Stubble]

That nobel prize winner solved the gas chamber problem and the cremation problem in his book years ago.

They didn't use either one at Auschwitz.

The evil nazis threw jews alive into rivers and lakes of fire.

[TlsMS93]

At first glance, 52 muffles seems like an astonishing number of furnaces, but anyone who studies cremation capacity will see that this number was insufficient even to cremate the natural deaths in the camp. There was no way there was room to dispose of the gassed people.

Seriously, 3.5 kg of coal per body, that's capitulation.

[HansHill]

"If mass cremations are proven to have happened, then there was enough coke."

Begging the question.

This is like when Prof Green famously wrote

Answer number one [no gassings took place] is, of course, untenable. We know that homicidal gassings occurred from historical evidence independently of the chemistry involved.

Green exposed himself out the gate as not taking this seriously and begging the question.

[Nessie]

The problem with your analysis approach is the lack of data. Your approach would work, if there was complete, detailed data, but there is not. That means no one can really know if their analysis is correct or not, based only on the data. The only way to determine whose analysis is correct, is to look at the evidence of what happened. If mass cremations are proven to have happened, then there was enough coke.

Your incredulity about coke usage is wrong, because of the lack of data on coke and the evidence is clear that mass cremations took place.

Oh, how convenient. There's no way we could ever figure anything out so let's just not check. Lmao. We can determine a great deal. What you are doing here is tactical epistemic ignorance.

There is considerable documentation on the coke deliveries and on coke usage at Auschwitz and at other camps like Gusen. This gives us some idea of how much coke was used per cremation and some idea of what the cremation capacity would have been over certain periods. The records are not complete, but you can't use that as an excuse to ignore very useful data.

I have not said to ignore it, or not check it. I have said that there is insufficient data to make a definitive conclusion, such as there was not enough coke delivered, therefore all the claims about mass cremations are lies.

"If mass cremations are proven to have happened, then there was enough coke."

Begging the question.

No, a causal link. When there is evidence to prove mass cremations, then it follows that large numbers of people were cremated, the ovens could cope and there was enough fuel. Otherwise, you would be arguing that proof of large numbers of people living in a camp over many years, does not evidence that the camp had accommodation and food to cope with those large numbers of people. Imagine if you presented evidence of the population accommodated at A-B, 1939 to 1945 I then claimed that since you cannot evidence enough food and barracks to accommodate all of those people, that therefore means no one was imprisoned there. Not being able to evidence all the food and barracks for the hundreds of thousands of prisoners at A-B, does not therefore mean no prisoners.

"Mass cremations" is vague. Auschwitz had around 135K registered deaths. That would be "mass" cremations. So saying "mass cremations are proven" doesn't settle anything since nobody says there were no cremations. What is disputed is whether 1.1M people were cremated at that camp. If there were death books that documented 1.1M cremations, you might have a point (although even in that case we should sanity check this.) But since we don't have that, this becomes a very technical question and there is no way to address it without looking at the data and doing some math. But you think doing math is a fallacy because that would be "trying to work out whether it could have happened" which you say is not allowed. Lol, that position is so ridiculous I can't even believe I'm having to explain this to you.

It is not my position. You are now guilty of the fallacy of strawman. Of course, it is necessary work, to establish what the death toll was and to look at all relevant evidence.

Testimonies can be considered as well, but most of the testimonies claim things like 4 bodies at a time stuffed in each muffle, 20,000 bodies burned per day, etc. Some are not so ridiculous and those can be considered as well in combination with sources.

It is not a fallacy to try and work out the technicalities of gassings and cremations. It is a fallacy to claim that because you cannot work out the technicalities, to your satisfaction, therefore there were no gassings and cremations.

[Nessie]

"If mass cremations are proven to have happened, then there was enough coke."

Begging the question.

This is like when Prof Green famously wrote

Answer number one [no gassings took place] is, of course, untenable. We know that homicidal gassings occurred from historical evidence independently of the chemistry involved.

Green exposed himself out the gate as not taking this seriously and begging the question.

Is arguing that because there is evidence that the camp reached a population of 153,000 in 1943, that means there was enough food and barracks for 153,000 people, begging the question? Or does one not logically follow the other? The evidence of the camp's population is independent of and not dependent on evidence of food and barracks for that number of people?

[Nessie]

This whole thread is going into the the Nessie Hall Of Fame for future generations to see. Glad to be a part of it.

To those reading in the future, while the Holocaust will have completely collapsed by the time you are reading this, we assure you - what you are reading was considered a serious topic in the early 21st century despite the farce.

The history of the Holocaust will never collapse, without a fully evidenced alternative history of what happened to the Jews arrested by the Nazis during WWII and millions liberated in 1945.

[Numar Patru]

"If mass cremations are proven to have happened, then there was enough coke."

Begging the question.

Not really. You could accuse the statement as being deliberately vague, but to beg the question, the “If” at the beginning of the statement would have to be replaced with “Because.”

This is like when Prof Green famously wrote

Answer number one [no gassings took place] is, of course, untenable. We know that homicidal gassings occurred from historical evidence independently of the chemistry involved.

Green exposed himself out the gate as not taking this seriously and begging the question.

Two things. First, Green is a PhD but not a professor. Second, what does Green say immediately after what’s quoted from him?

[HansHill]

This is like when Prof Green famously wrote

Answer number one [no gassings took place] is, of course, untenable. We know that homicidal gassings occurred from historical evidence independently of the chemistry involved.

Green exposed himself out the gate as not taking this seriously and begging the question.

Two things. First, Green is a PhD but not a professor. Second, what does Green say immediately after what’s quoted from him?

He writes:

Nevertheless, I will suspend my disbelief for a moment. If the lack of Prussian blue is supposed to prove that no gassing took place, possibilities 2 (formation is unrelated) and 3 (conditions at time of formation are not consistent) must be disproven. If it is not possible to do so, then the impossibility of gassings at the Kremas has not been shown.

But this is also not true. There are other possibilities, for example as I believe Avi Bitterman writes, the absence could also be explained by the PB forming and then disintegrating due to some process.

So, aside from Dr Green approaching this from an unscientific perspective, he attempts a false dichotomy "if / then" statement with faulty logic. Rudolf discusses Dr Green's faulty logic at length.

All of this is off topic, and if you wish to defend Dr Green's position, we'll take it into a new thread.

[Stubble]

All this gas chambers and cremations silliness ignores the facts. Lakes and rivers of fire at Auschwitz.

I think Eichmann may have corroborated this at his trial after his kidnapping before he was killed.