Certain topics should not be allowed on sciforums

[James R]

wynn:

So you think that, essentially, steampunk is a philosopher of truth, do you?

What an interesting perspective you have.

[wynn]

wynn:

So you think that, essentially, steampunk is a philosopher of truth, do you?

What an interesting perspective you have.

Please, James.
Heed your own signature:
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - attributed to Aristotle


Steampunk's approach to the topic may not be particularly sophisticated, but it is an example of putting questioning about truth into practice, with the awareness of there being various theories of truth.

Most people don't seem to question which theory of truth they themselves operate on.

Usually, what people consider truth, is merely a matter of social consensus, in which the opinion of the powerful elite trumps everything else.

I couldn't find the particular post of his, given all the moderating that took place, I am not sure it is still there, but he did say something to the effect that "you are all subjecting yourself to mainstream media without thinking for yourself."

[Bells]

Please, James.
Heed your own signature:
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - attributed to Aristotle

You don't get it.

His question was entertained. And it was answered and his denial of the Holocaust rejected with actual evidence of said Holocaust.

Perhaps you should ask Steampunk to consider Aristotle's quote for himself...

[James R]

wynn:

Steampunk's approach to the topic may not be particularly sophisticated, but it is an example of putting questioning about truth into practice, with the awareness of there being various theories of truth.

Which particular theory of truth do you think steampunk is following, consciously or not?

Most people don't seem to question which theory of truth they themselves operate on.

Which theory of truth do you operate on?

In particular, I'm interested at this point in what your operant theory of truth tells you about whether the holocaust happened or not.

Usually, what people consider truth, is merely a matter of social consensus, in which the opinion of the powerful elite trumps everything else.

That's usually the case, is it? How do you know this?

I couldn't find the particular post of his, given all the moderating that took place, I am not sure it is still there, but he did say something to the effect that "you are all subjecting yourself to mainstream media without thinking for yourself."

And you don't think that he is underestimating some of the posters here?

Are you a slave to the mainsteam media yourself, wynn?

[James R]

His question was entertained. And it was answered and his denial of the Holocaust rejected with actual evidence of said Holocaust.

Actually, at this point, steampunk hasn't been brave enough to have the actual debate he said he wanted. He appears to have disappeared.

[kwhilborn]

@ JamesR,

in regards to your post # 95.

Fair argument. You have me "mostly swayed" to your view. I still feel there will be some gullible people who might read an opening post and then hang up with their new world view.

I suppose there is no "correct" way to handle this situation, and the alternate theories seem to be all over as it is. I concede that your view is better than mine on this topic. I just hate to see misinformation given a preaching pedestal.

[prometheus]

I just hate to see misinformation given a preaching pedestal.

My irony circuits just melted...

[wynn]

Actually, at this point, steampunk hasn't been brave enough to have the actual debate he said he wanted. He appears to have disappeared.

How do you know "he hasn't been brave enough"? You are projecting.

What if he was hit by a car and is now lying in a hospital?

[Trippy]

How do you know "he hasn't been brave enough"? You are projecting.

What if he was hit by a car and is now lying in a hospital?

Maybe he was on his way to/from the library at the time...

[wynn]

You don't get it.

His question was entertained. And it was answered and his denial of the Holocaust rejected with actual evidence of said Holocaust.

Perhaps you should ask Steampunk to consider Aristotle's quote for himself...

Like I said earlier:


People who have not been personally present at an event have to rely on second-hand and third-hand sources.
They have to trust that those who are talking about an event are being truthful and complete in their accounts.

And this is the core of all such controversial discussions and debates.


Once there is some conflict among sources (one supposed first-hand source claims one thing, and another supposed first-hand source claims something else), or when a source admits to fabrication or is found out to have fabricated things, then people's trust in the whole process of relying on second-hand and third-hand sources diminishes.

What to do then when this trust is gone?

Some people believe that the best course of action is to simply blame the person who has lost trust, expecting-demanding them simply trust again, under threats of social exclusion, defamation of character etc. if they fail to trust again.
But people can't trust on command.

[wynn]

Excuse me?

Where have I endorsed and encouraged slurs against Muslim women who wear the burka?

Provide the evidence or retract your claim.

How could he provide evidence or retract his claim - when you banned him?

Who appointed you Speaker for the "Enlightened of Sciforums"?

Which particular theory of truth do you think steampunk is following, consciously or not?

I don't know, but it seems to me he is aware of the problems with the consesus theory (esp. as one of them is that the correspondence theory can be hijacked by the consensus theory and presented as correspondence, while being consensus).

Which theory of truth do you operate on?

In particular, I'm interested at this point in what your operant theory of truth tells you about whether the holocaust happened or not.

That's usually the case, is it? How do you know this?

And you don't think that he is underestimating some of the posters here?

Are you a slave to the mainsteam media yourself, wynn?

Come on, James. You want to make this an ego contest?

If you are not charitably disposed, then there is no point in discussing stuff.

If you really think I am Nazi supporter, then I just don't have the words to express my outrage.

[Xotica]

People who have not been personally present at an event have to rely on second-hand and third-hand sources.

Second and third hand sources?

I've been to Auschwitz. Nothing can prepare one for first-hand sights such as this...

[Bells]

Like I said earlier:


People who have not been personally present at an event have to rely on second-hand and third-hand sources.
They have to trust that those who are talking about an event are being truthful and complete in their accounts.

And this is the core of all such controversial discussions and debates.


Once there is some conflict among sources (one supposed first-hand source claims one thing, and another supposed first-hand source claims something else), or when a source admits to fabrication or is found out to have fabricated things, then people's trust in the whole process of relying on second-hand and third-hand sources diminishes.

What to do then when this trust is gone?

Some people believe that the best course of action is to simply blame the person who has lost trust, expecting-demanding them simply trust again, under threats of social exclusion, defamation of character etc. if they fail to trust again.
But people can't trust on command.

What conflict or fabrication do you see in regards to the Holocaust and the people killed at Auschwitz?

[Tiassa]

What conflict or fabrication do you see in regards to the Holocaust and the people killed at Auschwitz?

The current outlook, as near as I can tell, is that many people have become so cynical that they don't need any sense of "conflict or fabrication". It is simply a lack of psychological or intellectual discipline about the maxim, "Question everything".

We might as well say that World War II never happened.

What? I wasn't there. The people I've known who claimed to be there might have been lying. All the footage I've seen could be fabricated. I mean, I wasn't there, so I can't verify any of the remaining evidence. It could all be fabricated, and the idea that there was a "World War II" against the German Nazis, Italian Fascists, and Japanese Imperials could simply be some sort of big hoax intended to ... um ... I don't know, seed a military-industrial complex until it is powerful enough to subjugate the United States and, thereafter, the rest of the world.

Or something like that.

But what happens is that people apply the maxim according to their needs. To many, questioning something obvious is no different than questioning something obscure. Everything, in this sense, is subject to doubt, and people doubt according to the demands of their particular outlook. Thus, especially with certain, obvious things—such as, say, World War II, or the Holocaust that occurred within it—one can tell a bit about the nature of another's outlook according to their doubts.

[James R]

wynn:

How do you know "he hasn't been brave enough"? You are projecting.

What if he was hit by a car and is now lying in a hospital?

I don't know. But not being brave enough seems more likely to me than having been hit by a car.

Anyway, for now the debate thread is open and waiting for him when/if he returns.

LPeople who have not been personally present at an event have to rely on second-hand and third-hand sources.
They have to trust that those who are talking about an event are being truthful and complete in their accounts.

And this is the core of all such controversial discussions and debates.

When there are literally thousands or millions of independent accounts that all support one version of events, then opting to believe a conspiracy theory instead seems perverse to me.

Once there is some conflict among sources (one supposed first-hand source claims one thing, and another supposed first-hand source claims something else), or when a source admits to fabrication or is found out to have fabricated things, then people's trust in the whole process of relying on second-hand and third-hand sources diminishes.

That's wrong thinking. People should expect some discrepancy between different sources. Human memory is imperfect. We should always expect a small amount of fraud or exaggeration among thousands of witnesses. What people ought to do is to look at the big picture. In fact, it is only by focussing on minutiae and ignoring most of the wider context that holocaust deniers can even start to sound plausible.

How could [Gustav] provide evidence or retract his claim - when you banned him?

I changed my mind on that one, as is clear in the post. In this case, we are dealing with a repeat offender on sciforums, and one who ought to have learned his lesson from previous bans. Therefore, I decided not to stretch things out with this one and give him an opportunity to try to make a case that I know he could not make anyway. Instead, I decided to skip straight to a ban.

Come on, James. You want to make this an ego contest?

If you are not charitably disposed, then there is no point in discussing stuff.

If you really think I am Nazi supporter, then I just don't have the words to express my outrage.

If you're not supporting steampunk and his holocaust denial, why introduce the concept of alternative theories of truth and similar distractions? It looks to me like you're trying very hard to excuse steampunk's denial.

[MacGyver1968]

James, I say we give SP until the end of weekend...If he doesn't return, close both the formal Holocaust denial thread, and the 9/11 thread.

[Fraggle Rocker]

wynn: If you're not supporting steampunk and his holocaust denial, why introduce the concept of alternative theories of truth and similar distractions? It looks to me like you're trying very hard to excuse steampunk's denial.

Wynn is famous for reflexively taking the side of the underdog, with no consideration of merit. She should join a debate society where this type of argument for the sake of argument is not only welcomed but required. It doesn't go over so well on SciForums where it merely confuses people.

Or she could become an attorney, but this class of people is already much too large and influential.

[quadraphonics]

Wynn is famous for reflexively taking the side of the underdog, with no consideration of merit.

I'd contend that the lack of consideration of political implications (and so, whether said underdog is even presenting a good-faith argument in the first place) is more the sticking point here. We all know that Holocaust denial isn't typically rooted in principled skepticism, but in craven anti-semitism. A willingness to ignore that aspect is a problem, even if wynn doesn't personally subscribe to the underlying bigotry. Which is to say that the charitable interpretation still has wynn working as a useful idiot for nasty, anti-intellectual causes.

[wynn]

Second and third hand sources?

I've been to Auschwitz. Nothing can prepare one for first-hand sights such as this...

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_3gAn82q-8a...+Shoes+126.jpg

I live in Europe. People of my age and older have been seeing such pictures - and more - ever since they can remember.

What conflict or fabrication do you see in regards to the Holocaust and the people killed at Auschwitz?

Come stay in Europe for a few years and you'll see for yourself what the situation is.
Here, things are not so black-and-white.

While the evidence may be the same - the documents, artifacts, testimonies ... - people interpret them in different ways.

History textbooks for schools are rewritten significantly every couple of decades.
You should see what WWII commemorations look like, and how they change over the years.
You should see how people interact who were on opposing sides in the the war. How their children interact.

On national televisions, they have various documentaries from the world wars - American documentaries about WWII, German documentaries about WWII, French, British, Russian, Czech, Italian etc. documentaries about WWII. You might be surprised of the range of the views presented there.

Wynn is famous for reflexively taking the side of the underdog, with no consideration of merit.

You're wrong about that.

I am interested in understanding phenomena in their complexity.

But my experience is that many people outside of Europe tend to have a simplistic and very judgmental view of European history and politics.

They also tend to generally dismiss the acknowledgement of complexity, and see such acknowledgment as proof of moral and psychological depravity.
They tend to see someone who doesn't simply take sides as belonging to the opposing camp.
Ie. they believe that if someone isn't against the Nazis in a black-and-white manner, this means that the person supports the Nazis.

[GeoffP]

I am from Europe. I have a very judgmental attitude about a lot of things. Guess what? I'm right, too.

By "judgmental and simplistic" do you mean too anti-Nazi? What grey area are you dipping your toe in, if I may ask?