04 Oct 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesYou are committing the fallacy of the false analogy, the as well as the fallacy of the red herring and the fallacy of the Ad Hominoid. I expect better from you.
I'm not changing the subject. I'm addressing it by analogy, to demonstrate that the article is not worthy of more than a cursory examination and discard.
04 Oct 05
Originally posted by bbarrIf I am guilty of any fallacy, it is the fallacy of Argumentum Ad Ivanhoe, which occurs when a rational person attempts without any chance of success to engage Ivanhoe in a rational debate.
You are committing the fallacy of the false analogy, the as well as the fallacy of the red herring and the fallacy of the Ad Hominoid. I expect better from you.
04 Oct 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesIn the interests of verbal economy, I suggest that this fallacy be renamed Argumentum Ad Hoeminem.
If I am guilty of any fallacy, it is the fallacy of Argumentum Ad Ivanhoe, which occurs when a rational person attempts without any chance of success to engage Ivanhoe in a rational debate.
Is there a technical term for the style of argument that relies on meeting question with question without ever giving an answer?
04 Oct 05
1 edit
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesYou're not behaving like a rational person and you're certainly not debating like one with all these fallacies hanging alongside your little debating cart.
If I am guilty of any fallacy, it is the fallacy of Argumentum Ad Ivanhoe, which occurs when a rational person attempts without any chance of success to engage Ivanhoe in a rational debate.
04 Oct 05
Originally posted by Bosse de NageIf you want to be friends with the Dear Doctor that's fine by me, but please don't do it on my expense.
In the interests of verbal economy, I suggest that this fallacy be renamed Argumentum Ad Hoeminem.
Is there a technical term for the style of argument that relies on meeting question with question without ever giving an answer?
04 Oct 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesAlright. I'll humour you a bit.
The Holocaust was a hoax. Auschwitz appears to have provided nice recreational facilities, such as swimming pools, documented in photographs in this article.
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/holohoax.htm
"The Holocaust is a hoax. The time has come for Christian scholars and pastors to recognize this, and to stop perpetrating a hoax as the truth."
Is this crap?
From the article:
Fred A. Leuchter is America's leading specialist on the design and fabrication of execution equipment, including homicidal gas chambers. In 1988, Leuchter scraped samples from the alleged gas chamber walls in Auschwitz, Birkenau and Lublin. Cyanide residue would be clearly evident on all these walls if gassings did occur. To his astonishment, Leuchter found no significant cyanide traces in any one of these rooms.
Now, Fred Leuchter did, in fact, conduct the study mentioned and concluded that the gas chambers at these sites could not have been used for the purposes attributed to them in Holocaust literature‡.
However, there were many scientific drawbacks with the method he used to conclude his position†:
- The samples taken from the walls were too diluted to yield positive results
- Leuchter's examination happened over half a century after WWII; studies conducted immediately afterwards did yield positive identification of cyanide
- Leuchter was unaware that powerful ventilation equipment and structures needed for a gas chamber had been destroyed by the German army shortly before the end of the war - what he studied were actually reconstructions
Moving on to another point:
In 1991, the Polish government repeated these tests to disprove Leuchter's findings, but they as well found no evidence of any gassings ever occurring.
Presumably, they are talking about the Markiewicz study (by the Institute of Forensic Research, Cracow)§ - which actually did find traces of cyanide where it would've been used. However, it concluded that Leuchter's method simply wasn't good enough to pick up 50-year old traces - so, in a sense, it did validate Leuchter's experiment (although it made mincemeat of his conclusions)^.
I think I've made my point here.
---
‡ The Leuchter reports can be read here:
http://www.revisionists.com/leuchter/reports/index.html
† A more detailed list can be found at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_A._Leuchter#The_investigation
§ The IFFR report can be found here:
http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/chemistry/iffr/report.shtml
^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_A._Leuchter#Repetition_of_the_study_with_better_methodology
04 Oct 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesOnly problem is - I've seen no evidence of rational debate from your part in this thread. All you've given us so far is "This is crap" and a link to an article that has nothing to do with ivanhoe's.
If I am guilty of any fallacy, it is the fallacy of Argumentum Ad Ivanhoe, which occurs when a rational person attempts without any chance of success to engage Ivanhoe in a rational debate.
After all, ivanhoe isn't the self-proclaimed defender of rationalism on this forum.
04 Oct 05
4 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammer
I think I've made my point here.
But you didn't answer my question. Is the holocaust article I cited crap or not crap?
"The Holocaust is a hoax. The time has come for Christian scholars and pastors to recognize this, and to stop perpetrating a hoax as the truth."
Is it possible for an article that asserts this to be not crap?
04 Oct 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeIf you could exercise a little patience, rather than insisting that I read your crap article, you would see me complete my argument.
You're not behaving like a rational person and you're certainly not debating like one with all these fallacies hanging alongside your little debating cart.
05 Oct 05
2 edits
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesBut you didn't answer my question. Is the holocaust article I cited crap or not crap?
Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]
I think I've made my point here.
But you didn't answer my question. Is the holocaust article I cited crap or not crap?
"The Holocaust is a hoax. The time has come for Christian scholars and pastors to recognize this, and to stop perpetrating a hoax as the truth."
Is it possible for an article that asserts this to be not crap?[/b]
As a historical essay, yes, it is crap because it has got matters of historical fact wrong and relies on faulty research and deductions.
But I did not merely state it, I demonstrated it. You have yet to do anything of the sort with the Inquisition article.
Is it possible for an article that asserts this to be not crap?
Why not? I wasn't actually at Auschwitz or any of the other concentration camps (nor were any of my relatives or acquaintances) - so I have no direct testimony to refute the article.
Nevertheless, the Holocaust is so well-researched that indisputable facts about it are part of common consciousness, "common knowledge" if you will. Plus, the events of the Shoah took place less than a century ago - so common knowledge (especially in the 20th century media age) is likely to be reasonably close to fact. So, I can reasonably draw on common knowledge to judge that the article is crap even though I do not have a direct refutation.
However, I am always aware of the limitations of such a judgment. From an evidentiary perspective, I simply do not have adequate grounds to reject the premise of this article outright. I have a good idea of what my conclusion will be like - but that does not absolve me of the responsibility to actually arrive at that conclusion based on the evidence.
As a scientist, you shouldn't have to be told any of this.
So, Doctor, quit wasting everyone's time on red herrings and show us exactly why you know ivanhoe's article is crap. If the best response you have is "Everyone knows this is crap" (essentially what your false analogy to Holocaust deniers implies) then I'm sorely disappointed.
05 Oct 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerWhy not? I wasn't actually at Auschwitz or any of the other concentration camps (nor were any of my relatives or acquaintances) - so I have no direct testimony to refute the article.
[b]But you didn't answer my question. Is the holocaust article I cited crap or not crap?
As a historical essay, yes, it is crap because it has got matters of historical fact wrong and relies on faulty research and deductions.
But I did not merely state it, I demonstrated it. You have yet to do anything of the sort with ...[text shortened]... essentially what your false analogy to Holocaust deniers implies) then I'm sorely disappointed.[/b]
I should also mention that I am not a Holocaust expert and so cannot rely on domain expertise to make a judgment either. However, domain expertise simply means that, if I have to, I can demonstrate exactly what's wrong with the article (with a little jogging of the memory, if necessary).
05 Oct 05
4 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerMy time is too precious to spend reading long articles that are clearly propaganda. I started to read it and stopped when I got to the point that claimed that the Inquisition should be praised as a blessing and not cursed as an atrocity upon the people of Europe. There are no facts that can support this, and I didn't need to read further to analyze them individually to make that finding, just as I didn't need to read the holocaust article I cited to find that concentration camps didn't really offer nice recreational facilities for their guests.
[b]But you didn't answer my question. Is the holocaust article I cited crap or not crap?
As a historical essay, yes, it is crap because it has got matters of historical fact wrong and relies on faulty research and deductions.
But I did not merely state it, I demonstrated it. You have yet to do anything of the sort with ...[text shortened]... essentially what your false analogy to Holocaust deniers implies) then I'm sorely disappointed.[/b]
If Ivanhoe thinks there are relevant points from the article, then he may present them in his own words. But I cannot spend my time reading every article he throws my way as a substitute for argument, especially crap ones.
05 Oct 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesIn other words, you saw a conclusion you didn't like and stopped reading. How very rational.
My time is too precious to spend reading long articles that are clearly propaganda. I started to read it and stopped when I got to the point that claimed that the Inquisition should be praised as a blessing and not cursed as an atrocity upon the people of Europe. There are no facts that can support this, and I didn't need to read further to analyz ...[text shortened]... time reading every article he throws my way as a substitute for argument, especially crap ones.
Even if you didn't have the time to read the whole article, surely you had something to say about the two paragraphs I quoted from the article.