The fallacy of Marc's appeal to the consensus of historians is as follows:
Yes, you may be right. I think the fallacy of the appeal to consensus may be a more accurate assessment.
Ummm...Huh ?IOW, appeal to authority and threat of anathema to those who don't preach the accepted dogma, but appeal to authority is no substitute for actually posting some of those documents here for us to see them.
Anyway, there is no scholarly debate about the essential events of or the numbers killed in the Holocaust. No serious scholar thinks otherwise. The entire community of credentialed Historians thinks Holocaust denial and its variations (it occurred but just a few were really killed) is a fraud. The events and the numbers are very well documented. The Germans have a habit of being thorough. They documented everything.
You seem not to understand what the fallacy of appeal to authority is.
What does the fallacy of consensus mean? And how did you come to understand such a concept?
What is a bird? In virtue of what do you and I, I hope, understand what that is when I point out the thing with feathers (wait how do we understand what feather are . . . )
Hint: There is no fallacy here. Except for the fallacy of thinking you know what you are talking about.
Or what might be loosely defined as "sophistry".
Marc argues that no serious historical scholar questions the received tradition on the Holocaust, that the entire historical community has branded Holocaust denial a fraud. But just because even the entire historical community says something is true doesn't make it true. The truth of a historical claim should be evident from the historical record itself; it is not dependent on what a consensus of historical scholars proclaims it to be. The consensus of historical scholars could be wrong. How did they come to their consensus? What information are they all examining, and how do they know it's not just wartime propaganda? On what basis do they brand as heretics those who disagree? Are they not refining their consensus artificially (i.e., stacking the deck) by purging those who won't toe the party line? What if there's some information they have all overlooked? (It seems to me we've had similar controversy recently regarding whether global warming is human-caused.)
Again, I'm not asserting anything as fact on this thread. I don't deny that millions of Jews suffered inhumanely in the Nazi concentration camps and that many of them died. I don't even deny that some of them were executed like dogs. I've just seen enough information to raise a few questions regarding the established history that millions died in the gas chambers in an around-the-clock effort to exterminate the race of the Jews. I've come to realize that I simply don't know what I once thought I knew, and I've always been one to question the consensus, believing as I do that consensus, even when real, is not proof that the consensus point of view is correct.
So you are a philosophical skeptic in the true sense and thus not an Orthodox Christian?
How do you prove all that stuff? What truth claim can you possibly utter given the litany of your questions above?
Those questions you raise are constantly being asked within academia by experts in their fields in lieu of a long winding road of world-historical events that have brought us to the point where we tend to allot credence to certain groups of people who went they primarily agree on something, we accept their judgement.
Have you lived in academia? I've actually seen fist fights break out at an English Symposium and that was before the liquor was poured. It ain't like you have a fleet of rubber stamping folks out there OKing the same research over and over.
The internet "scholar" takes a blip of a disagreement out of a journal or starts asking "hard" questions starting from nothing.
Lotsa Jews died. We agree, I think. I don't tend to read marc's posts cause he is another person who selectively applies critical thought to certain subjects. I read his first few posts and he didn't seem to be going all Zionist (which I reject), so I ignored that part of the debate.
But you are placing yourself in the philosophical skeptical corner. Which means you pretty much are unable to make any statement regarding "truth claims", even the fact that they ought to be questioned.
This ain't sophistry here. Some folks really have held to this belief.
We now know creation is the product of "evolution" in the general sense, well those of us who are not nuts, that is the consensus of the scientific community. The experts. How that all works out gets argued within that community. The presence of those arguments or the changes in our understanding of things doesn't discount understanding altogether.
Who are the people examining that historical record? The historians. Are we all to learn and study everything for ourselves? Even then we could never be sure of anything to any degree. Should I learn pharmacy while I am at it?
Some folks in academia are unjustly painted as kooks, holocaust deniers ain't them.
I do think they should be allowed to hold those views (unlike they can in France and Germany for example) without being legally prosecuted.
But again, we've taken human ugliness and complication and reduced to some bloodless questions like:
How do you know?
How do you know they know?
If you would like to open up a thread on epistemology in general have at it. But to take a stance close to philosophical skepticism in this thread really make zero sense.
And I am finished with cute and clever remarks. For this thread at least.
And finished at least for now.