Ask HN: how to deal with revisionism?
14 comments
Welcome to the modern condition; this will only get worse for the foreseeable future.
The easiest heuristic is always to first ask qui bono, and then heavily discount information whose content if true would advance the interests of the information supplier.
Thus: if Pepsi runs an ad on TV saying Pepsi is the schizz and Coke is just fizz, you discount that information heavily b/c Pepsi's just talking its book.
There's a loose analogy to information-theory proper here: the information content of a message is proportional to its unpredictability; if for example you could reliably reproduce an N-bit message once you had the first k < N bits you'd say the message only has k bits of information, not N.
Thus if knowing who is speaking lets you know what they'll say you should just ignore them; if you ever want to find out what they said you just have to remember who they were and reconstruct what they were saying, so you can defer considering it until you have a reason to care.
This looks like ad hominem but isn't; it's just avoiding low-information-gain use of your time.
The other thing to do is to back away from the twin notions that:
(1) holding true beliefs is in and of itself as valuable as you think it is
(2) most participants in a debate (a) attach the same importance to holding true beliefs that you do and (b) would switch to a different belief if the evidence supported it
(1) is probably the hardest to let go, but it's something you have to let go (holding true beliefs when such beliefs are inputs to an important decision is important; otherwise not so much).
(2) is more important.
A good general rule of thumb is that most people like to think of their lives as having had some kind of meaning or purpose, etc.; just living, enjoying what life brings you, and peacefully shuffling off the mortal coil isn't a satisfying life for many people (probably b/c our brains are hardwired for a difficult life in the jungle and get bored in the absence of real threats to overcome).
In places where life is nasty, brutish, and short survival itself is enough of a challenge that the struggle for simple survival is itself enough to cast your life into a narrative where you're a hero of some sort; in modern societies the challenges of life aren't generally enough on their own to provide a convincing narrative of moral heft and so other struggles have to be invented to fill in the meaning.
A first consequence of this impulse is firstly that people tend to assign excessive moral heft to the things they're good at:
- someone who has eg bootstrapped themselves out of a bad situation by virtue of wise decisions and self-restraint will assign a high moral value to wise decisionmaking and self-restraint, so that their life's story has a heroic bent to it above-and-beyond simple utility maximization
- someone who has strong aesthetic or artistic preferences or beliefs will assign a high moral value to aesthetics and artistic purity so that the decisions they have made (not "selling out", etc.) take on a heroic bent above-and-beyond simple utility maximization
- and of course someone who believes themselves to be good at arriving at true beliefs will assign an irrationally high importance to holding true beliefs (if you doubt this just count the # of times pundits or would-be "thinkers" write sentences like "I used to believe X but then I learned about Y and after some struggle I now believe Z instead X")
...etc. and a second consequence of this impulse arises from how it interacts with social life; people are at heart social beings and thus it is very easy to add additional axes of meaning to one's narrative by banding together into a faction as part of a larger struggle against other faction(s).
These affiliation-derived meanings range from sports teams to political labels to "sides" in an argument or public debate.
These two dynamics intersect in areas of contention in predictable ways:
- on each side of an argument you'll have some nucleus (core members) who will be a mix of people who assign a huge important to true beliefs (and currently believe in the side they're on) and shills (representatives of those whose interests hinge on what way the debate gets resolved if it gets resolved)
- then thanks to the way that additional meaning can be added to people's lives the mechanism by which affiliation-derived meaning can be added just by taking a side means that many hangers-on pick sides based on the meaning it gives them to do so (or because they've already made a commitment to a faction in exchange for enhanced meaning and "in for a penny in for a pound" (eg: joining a church makes it easier for them to cast their life as partially a struggle for virtue and against sin; b/c of that prior commitment they also commit against evolution as in the church they joined they can't do both))
With the following consequences:
- the people who hold true belief important can be convinced by reasoning and argumentation, provided the argumentation is sufficiently, overwhelmingly powerful that it's impossible to see said argumentation without coming to agree with it as a rational being; most argumentation -- especially on debatable issues -- is not that strong, and thus not enough on its own merits to nudge someone on the "other side" to take the hit to their self-esteem (as a discerner of true beliefs) and switch
- the shills can't be convinced by anything; they're dishonest participants and will argue their case as long as they keep getting paid
- the affiliational-types aren't going to be convinced by reasoning; the get convinced only when it becomes clear that greater meaning-in-their-lives can be had by switching to the other side, which is more about reconciling conflicting affiliational claims than it is about winning a debate (eg: finding a away to reconcile their religious beliefs with the other side -- thereby letting them keep their religious affiliation and join your side -- is more important than convincing them your side is right). A huge downside of even trying to argue is that arguing with them increases the amount of meaning their participation in the struggle gives them -- as it starts to look and talk like a real struggle, with conflict and bad guys and so on -- best just to make your side seem like the more-meaningful side
Which en fin is why such issues are best ignored. Things will only get worse as technology improves: allowing more communication => more opinions transmitted to more places => more factions / debates (and thus less time to learn the intricacies of each of them even if you wanted to) => more opportunities to join factions and add meaning to life => more of the same only more so.
This will be especially true for historical stuff, since history is vastly underdetermined by the available evidence and the same set of historical facts can usually support dozens of reasonable interpretations; much of the apparent previous state of consensus about what happened historically is as much a function of the previously high barriers to entry in publishing stuff as it is a sign that the previous consensus opinion was correct.
The easiest heuristic is always to first ask qui bono, and then heavily discount information whose content if true would advance the interests of the information supplier.
Thus: if Pepsi runs an ad on TV saying Pepsi is the schizz and Coke is just fizz, you discount that information heavily b/c Pepsi's just talking its book.
There's a loose analogy to information-theory proper here: the information content of a message is proportional to its unpredictability; if for example you could reliably reproduce an N-bit message once you had the first k < N bits you'd say the message only has k bits of information, not N.
Thus if knowing who is speaking lets you know what they'll say you should just ignore them; if you ever want to find out what they said you just have to remember who they were and reconstruct what they were saying, so you can defer considering it until you have a reason to care.
This looks like ad hominem but isn't; it's just avoiding low-information-gain use of your time.
The other thing to do is to back away from the twin notions that:
(1) holding true beliefs is in and of itself as valuable as you think it is
(2) most participants in a debate (a) attach the same importance to holding true beliefs that you do and (b) would switch to a different belief if the evidence supported it
(1) is probably the hardest to let go, but it's something you have to let go (holding true beliefs when such beliefs are inputs to an important decision is important; otherwise not so much).
(2) is more important.
A good general rule of thumb is that most people like to think of their lives as having had some kind of meaning or purpose, etc.; just living, enjoying what life brings you, and peacefully shuffling off the mortal coil isn't a satisfying life for many people (probably b/c our brains are hardwired for a difficult life in the jungle and get bored in the absence of real threats to overcome).
In places where life is nasty, brutish, and short survival itself is enough of a challenge that the struggle for simple survival is itself enough to cast your life into a narrative where you're a hero of some sort; in modern societies the challenges of life aren't generally enough on their own to provide a convincing narrative of moral heft and so other struggles have to be invented to fill in the meaning.
A first consequence of this impulse is firstly that people tend to assign excessive moral heft to the things they're good at:
- someone who has eg bootstrapped themselves out of a bad situation by virtue of wise decisions and self-restraint will assign a high moral value to wise decisionmaking and self-restraint, so that their life's story has a heroic bent to it above-and-beyond simple utility maximization
- someone who has strong aesthetic or artistic preferences or beliefs will assign a high moral value to aesthetics and artistic purity so that the decisions they have made (not "selling out", etc.) take on a heroic bent above-and-beyond simple utility maximization
- and of course someone who believes themselves to be good at arriving at true beliefs will assign an irrationally high importance to holding true beliefs (if you doubt this just count the # of times pundits or would-be "thinkers" write sentences like "I used to believe X but then I learned about Y and after some struggle I now believe Z instead X")
...etc. and a second consequence of this impulse arises from how it interacts with social life; people are at heart social beings and thus it is very easy to add additional axes of meaning to one's narrative by banding together into a faction as part of a larger struggle against other faction(s).
These affiliation-derived meanings range from sports teams to political labels to "sides" in an argument or public debate.
These two dynamics intersect in areas of contention in predictable ways:
- on each side of an argument you'll have some nucleus (core members) who will be a mix of people who assign a huge important to true beliefs (and currently believe in the side they're on) and shills (representatives of those whose interests hinge on what way the debate gets resolved if it gets resolved)
- then thanks to the way that additional meaning can be added to people's lives the mechanism by which affiliation-derived meaning can be added just by taking a side means that many hangers-on pick sides based on the meaning it gives them to do so (or because they've already made a commitment to a faction in exchange for enhanced meaning and "in for a penny in for a pound" (eg: joining a church makes it easier for them to cast their life as partially a struggle for virtue and against sin; b/c of that prior commitment they also commit against evolution as in the church they joined they can't do both))
With the following consequences:
- the people who hold true belief important can be convinced by reasoning and argumentation, provided the argumentation is sufficiently, overwhelmingly powerful that it's impossible to see said argumentation without coming to agree with it as a rational being; most argumentation -- especially on debatable issues -- is not that strong, and thus not enough on its own merits to nudge someone on the "other side" to take the hit to their self-esteem (as a discerner of true beliefs) and switch
- the shills can't be convinced by anything; they're dishonest participants and will argue their case as long as they keep getting paid
- the affiliational-types aren't going to be convinced by reasoning; the get convinced only when it becomes clear that greater meaning-in-their-lives can be had by switching to the other side, which is more about reconciling conflicting affiliational claims than it is about winning a debate (eg: finding a away to reconcile their religious beliefs with the other side -- thereby letting them keep their religious affiliation and join your side -- is more important than convincing them your side is right). A huge downside of even trying to argue is that arguing with them increases the amount of meaning their participation in the struggle gives them -- as it starts to look and talk like a real struggle, with conflict and bad guys and so on -- best just to make your side seem like the more-meaningful side
Which en fin is why such issues are best ignored. Things will only get worse as technology improves: allowing more communication => more opinions transmitted to more places => more factions / debates (and thus less time to learn the intricacies of each of them even if you wanted to) => more opportunities to join factions and add meaning to life => more of the same only more so.
This will be especially true for historical stuff, since history is vastly underdetermined by the available evidence and the same set of historical facts can usually support dozens of reasonable interpretations; much of the apparent previous state of consensus about what happened historically is as much a function of the previously high barriers to entry in publishing stuff as it is a sign that the previous consensus opinion was correct.
The proper approach to these debates is either (a) rational ignorance [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_ignorance ], (b) study up on both sides.
I dislike the word "revisionism" as a slur against the standard position. Revision is good. When more data comes to light, one should reevaluate what one things one knows. "Revisionism" is another word for "the scientific method" ; it should not be a slur.
I've done a fair bit of reading on all of these, and I am convinced of the "standard" position on all, except two. Anthropogenic Global Warming and Peak Oil have a lot less solid science behind them than the others, and replace it with (IMO) dubious modeling.
I dislike the word "revisionism" as a slur against the standard position. Revision is good. When more data comes to light, one should reevaluate what one things one knows. "Revisionism" is another word for "the scientific method" ; it should not be a slur.
I've done a fair bit of reading on all of these, and I am convinced of the "standard" position on all, except two. Anthropogenic Global Warming and Peak Oil have a lot less solid science behind them than the others, and replace it with (IMO) dubious modeling.
Definitions certainly get muddled. Revisionism, skepticism, and denialism. You have to be really careful about labels, but we should all agree that skepticism (esp. of the scientific variety) is good but when it becomes denialism, we've left the rational world.
I find these topics fascinating. In fact, I think everyone should dig into one just as a mental exercise. Convince yourself. You will learn a tremendous amount, even from the most bizarre. And not just about science or whatever topic is at hand, but at logic, fallacy, and how people think about and convince themselves of things.
I've dug fairly deep into things like 9/11 conspiracy theories, creationism, moon hoaxes, tax protesters, and other assorted "alternative" theories (like homeopathy). I am 100% convinced they are all nonsense, but I encourage anyone to dig in. You'd be simply amazed how much you can and will learn.
I find these topics fascinating. In fact, I think everyone should dig into one just as a mental exercise. Convince yourself. You will learn a tremendous amount, even from the most bizarre. And not just about science or whatever topic is at hand, but at logic, fallacy, and how people think about and convince themselves of things.
I've dug fairly deep into things like 9/11 conspiracy theories, creationism, moon hoaxes, tax protesters, and other assorted "alternative" theories (like homeopathy). I am 100% convinced they are all nonsense, but I encourage anyone to dig in. You'd be simply amazed how much you can and will learn.
You can start with the hollow (or flat) earth.
Brought to you by the same guy who invented the Dark Sucker theory: http://home.netcom.com/~rogermw2/square_earth.html
EDIT: he also has a Force Skeptics page that might be relevant to our discussion. http://home.netcom.com/~rogermw2/force_skeptics.html
EDIT: he also has a Force Skeptics page that might be relevant to our discussion. http://home.netcom.com/~rogermw2/force_skeptics.html
Tax protesters?
People say there is no law authorizing the income tax. I don't remember the arguments nullifying the 16th amendment, but they have them.
Oh yes, those loons. I think they argue it was never ratified by one state or another.
I'd pick a name other than "tax protesters" for them, though, to distinguish them from your run-of-the-mill folks who like to protest that taxes should be lower.
I'd pick a name other than "tax protesters" for them, though, to distinguish them from your run-of-the-mill folks who like to protest that taxes should be lower.
> Anthropogenic Global Warming ...
That brings up an interesting point. After all, the OP didn't say "anthropogenic"; he only said "global warming". And some people deny that as well. That gives us three positions: (1) the earth is warming up and humans made it happen, (2) the earth is warming up and humans didn't make it happen, and (3) the earth is not warming up. And then there are endless variations about how much it will warm up, and how much this is a problem, etc.
My point is that, when two sides debate an issue, they can both be wrong. Simply because we are presented with two positions, does not mean we have to choose one of them.
Thus, when the conservatives say one thing, and the liberals say another, we probably need to pick one of the two as something to vote for, but not necessarily as something to believe.
That brings up an interesting point. After all, the OP didn't say "anthropogenic"; he only said "global warming". And some people deny that as well. That gives us three positions: (1) the earth is warming up and humans made it happen, (2) the earth is warming up and humans didn't make it happen, and (3) the earth is not warming up. And then there are endless variations about how much it will warm up, and how much this is a problem, etc.
My point is that, when two sides debate an issue, they can both be wrong. Simply because we are presented with two positions, does not mean we have to choose one of them.
Thus, when the conservatives say one thing, and the liberals say another, we probably need to pick one of the two as something to vote for, but not necessarily as something to believe.
You forgot:
4. The CO2 (and other anthropogenic greenhouse gases) is warming the earth, but the stratospheric sulfur dioxide produced by China's burning of lots of sulfurous coal is beginning to counteract the CO2 warming.
4. The CO2 (and other anthropogenic greenhouse gases) is warming the earth, but the stratospheric sulfur dioxide produced by China's burning of lots of sulfurous coal is beginning to counteract the CO2 warming.
The Holocaust deniers are definitely wrong too, just as are the people who don't credit the evidence for biological evolution. And anyone who thinks that medically administered vaccines are more dangerous than measles, pertussis, or seasonal flu is crazy. The harder case is vaccination against chicken pox, a disease with lower mortality and morbidity.
To answer your methodological question about how to tell the difference between competing ideas, learn to read the peer-reviewed scientific journals on each subject. Now that the Public Library of Science (PLoS) journals all have open online access, it's easier than ever to practice reading scientific literature. See Peter Norvig's guide to reading scientific research
http://norvig.com/experiment-design.html
for what to look for while reading.
To answer your methodological question about how to tell the difference between competing ideas, learn to read the peer-reviewed scientific journals on each subject. Now that the Public Library of Science (PLoS) journals all have open online access, it's easier than ever to practice reading scientific literature. See Peter Norvig's guide to reading scientific research
http://norvig.com/experiment-design.html
for what to look for while reading.
What makes you so sure, though? I think there are definitely cases of too much vaccination, for example (though I personally don't think the major ones are superfluous - but I have so far never vaccinated against the seasonal flu...). There is a lot of money at stake, too.
Holocaust: well it's impossible to discuss, and to me personally it has little relevance. Whenever I tried to look for more information, I hit on a lot of question marks. So I think the details are very unclear, but no doubt a lot of people died. Thing is, it was before I was born and there are hardly any traces left, so how to ever be sure?
Holocaust: well it's impossible to discuss, and to me personally it has little relevance. Whenever I tried to look for more information, I hit on a lot of question marks. So I think the details are very unclear, but no doubt a lot of people died. Thing is, it was before I was born and there are hardly any traces left, so how to ever be sure?
The evidence for the Holocaust is so complete and wide-ranging that to question it almost instantly puts you into the "loony" category. Just because it happened before you were born is not an argument for believing in it or not. Otherwise, %99.9999... of the knowledge that you have would be useless. The number of eyewitnesses to the Holocaust alone is evidence enough, but the documentary footage of it is also significant.
If you research a bit of the Holocaust you will soon learn there is a lot of weird things going on in the story that doesn't really make much scientific sense. Take a look at this documentary that covers 1/3 of the concentration camps: www.onethirdoftheholocaust.com While I do believe the Holocaust happened and it was a terrible thing, I also realize that people tend to exaggerate their stories.
Unfortunately, most people have such an emotional reaction against questioning anything related to the Holocaust they completely give up reason and instead become blind to any scientific argument.
Unfortunately, most people have such an emotional reaction against questioning anything related to the Holocaust they completely give up reason and instead become blind to any scientific argument.
"Documentary" is being kind to the dreck the holocaust revisionists spew on sites like that. No thank you, I'm very well aware of their idiotic arguments.
Documentary footage like "Schindler's Liste"? ;-)
I have not seen any of the footage. Where can I see it? I have seen movies of concentration camps when the American soldiers first set foot in them. But I don't know enough to be sure that it wasn't diseases that killed a lot of people and led to the starved looks, for example. Also, how did anybody survive at all? It seems difficult also to judge pictures from war times from our modern perspective. (corpses were probably a common sight - not so much today).
Not that I want to deny the HC, it is just that I don't take things at face value. Luckily the HC issue is not relevant enough to me to get too involved. It is sufficient to me to know that a lot of people died, and I know that humans can be very evil. Nitpicking on the details is also likely just something the revisionists start.
I have not seen any of the footage. Where can I see it? I have seen movies of concentration camps when the American soldiers first set foot in them. But I don't know enough to be sure that it wasn't diseases that killed a lot of people and led to the starved looks, for example. Also, how did anybody survive at all? It seems difficult also to judge pictures from war times from our modern perspective. (corpses were probably a common sight - not so much today).
Not that I want to deny the HC, it is just that I don't take things at face value. Luckily the HC issue is not relevant enough to me to get too involved. It is sufficient to me to know that a lot of people died, and I know that humans can be very evil. Nitpicking on the details is also likely just something the revisionists start.
There is more evidence for the holocaust than there was for Kennedy assassination. He is alive and living in Texas. Bob the impersonator in the car had no idea he was about to be shot and nobody can talk about it because they are all accomplices to the murder... [kidding]
Anyway, the idea that you can keep a secret that 100,000+ people are in on is just silly. If you really want to know, use sonar to look at the mass graves. Still the allure of conspiracy theories is huge. So it’s easy for people to ignore evidence that does not support their pet theory.
PS: My favorite theory is idea that UFO's where created by the US Air force to misdirect the Russians when people in the middle of the country started seeing strange objects in the sky they would see reports from the US of the same thing. The advantage of this theory is it would take a small number of people to create, and those in the know would have little reason to tell the truth thinking it's a good joke.
Anyway, the idea that you can keep a secret that 100,000+ people are in on is just silly. If you really want to know, use sonar to look at the mass graves. Still the allure of conspiracy theories is huge. So it’s easy for people to ignore evidence that does not support their pet theory.
PS: My favorite theory is idea that UFO's where created by the US Air force to misdirect the Russians when people in the middle of the country started seeing strange objects in the sky they would see reports from the US of the same thing. The advantage of this theory is it would take a small number of people to create, and those in the know would have little reason to tell the truth thinking it's a good joke.
> the idea that you can keep a secret that 100,000+ people are in on is just silly
100,000 would be hard, but 10,000 vetted employees threatened with the power of the state for the rest of their lives is definitely done in militaries all over the world.
Look at the never ending revelations about the early Soviet era. Many aspects of the GULAG system are only becoming clear now.
I do not find the argument that governments can't keep secrets convincing at all. Even if the seal isn't airtight there is often such a highly effective ability to muddy the waters the truth becomes impossible to see through the disinformation.
100,000 would be hard, but 10,000 vetted employees threatened with the power of the state for the rest of their lives is definitely done in militaries all over the world.
Look at the never ending revelations about the early Soviet era. Many aspects of the GULAG system are only becoming clear now.
I do not find the argument that governments can't keep secrets convincing at all. Even if the seal isn't airtight there is often such a highly effective ability to muddy the waters the truth becomes impossible to see through the disinformation.
The US government failed to keep instructions for building Atomic bombs from Russia. After realizing that failure they then designed and built the far more powerful Hydrogen bomb, which was quickly copped by the Russians. This information has then leaked around the world. You can trace every atomic bomb program in the world back to information gathered from the US.
PS: Governments have discovered the best way to keep secrets is to tell as few people as possible. There are not 10,000 people who know how to create the best radar absorbing paint used by the Air force. So, even as we are constantly compromised each leak is limited to what that person or computer system knows.
PS: Governments have discovered the best way to keep secrets is to tell as few people as possible. There are not 10,000 people who know how to create the best radar absorbing paint used by the Air force. So, even as we are constantly compromised each leak is limited to what that person or computer system knows.
So Counter Intelligence was weak in that case. It's an anecdote, and there are plenty of anecdotes about well kept secrets throughout history.
"If you really want to know, use sonar to look at the mass graves."
There are no mass graves, apparently.
Edit: thanks for the link, sethg. It only highlights the problem - after a while of reading discussions it get's confusing... Maybe one thing to take away is to avoid public discussions and try to find more reliable sources. In this case of course I believe your link, I am just surprised how the other sources I read could get away with it.
There are no mass graves, apparently.
Edit: thanks for the link, sethg. It only highlights the problem - after a while of reading discussions it get's confusing... Maybe one thing to take away is to avoid public discussions and try to find more reliable sources. In this case of course I believe your link, I am just surprised how the other sources I read could get away with it.
You have been misinformed.
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/camps/aktion.reinhard/belzec/A...
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/orgs/german/einsatzgruppen/ftp...
(there is of course more evidence available for those who seek it, but I just want to establish that the number of mass graves is greater than zero)
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/camps/aktion.reinhard/belzec/A...
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/orgs/german/einsatzgruppen/ftp...
(there is of course more evidence available for those who seek it, but I just want to establish that the number of mass graves is greater than zero)
There are enough photographs of near death, emaciates being rescued from the camps to satisfy my curiosity.
I suppose it could be some sort of elaborate ruse being forced on us by older generations, crazier myths have formed. But, I find it more likely that the Shoah happened.
I suppose it could be some sort of elaborate ruse being forced on us by older generations, crazier myths have formed. But, I find it more likely that the Shoah happened.
"There are enough photographs of near death, emaciates being rescued from the camps to satisfy my curiosity."
That is just emotions though, not science. There are gruesome pictures from any war - I think few POW camps were very pleasant, for example. At the Kosovo war there were also fake pictures from concentration camps distributed by the mainstream press.
Again I don't want to deny the killings, I just feel there are things missing from the story. For example, if all the nazis wanted was to kill, why have concentration camps to begin with. Why were there any survivors at all? I suppose they made the able ones work for the war effort, but then you mention the near death - presumably they were not that able to work anymore.
That is just emotions though, not science. There are gruesome pictures from any war - I think few POW camps were very pleasant, for example. At the Kosovo war there were also fake pictures from concentration camps distributed by the mainstream press.
Again I don't want to deny the killings, I just feel there are things missing from the story. For example, if all the nazis wanted was to kill, why have concentration camps to begin with. Why were there any survivors at all? I suppose they made the able ones work for the war effort, but then you mention the near death - presumably they were not that able to work anymore.
Excerpts from Goebbels's diary:
February 14, 1942: The Führer once again expressed his determination to clean up the Jews in Europe pitilessly. There must be no squeamish sentimentalism about it. The Jews have deserved the catastrophe that has now overtaken them. Their destruction will go hand in hand with the destruction of our enemies. We must hasten this process with cold ruthlessness.
March 27, 1942: The procedure is a pretty barbaric one and not to be described here more definitely. Not much will remain of the Jews. On the whole it can be said that about 60 per cent of them will have to be liquidated whereas only 40 per cent can be used for forced labor.
(quoted in http://www.nizkor.org/qar-complete.cgi)
February 14, 1942: The Führer once again expressed his determination to clean up the Jews in Europe pitilessly. There must be no squeamish sentimentalism about it. The Jews have deserved the catastrophe that has now overtaken them. Their destruction will go hand in hand with the destruction of our enemies. We must hasten this process with cold ruthlessness.
March 27, 1942: The procedure is a pretty barbaric one and not to be described here more definitely. Not much will remain of the Jews. On the whole it can be said that about 60 per cent of them will have to be liquidated whereas only 40 per cent can be used for forced labor.
(quoted in http://www.nizkor.org/qar-complete.cgi)
A) Your argument that the Holocaust might not have happened could be applied to any historic event. Moon landings included. Saying it didn't happen because you've figured out a way that it could have been faked is pointless, since it amounts to an unfalsifiable negative.
B) Occam's razor applies. Conspiracy to fake the Holocoust is invariably more complex than it would have been for an openly racist & facist regime to have done it.
C) You would need an alternative explanation for 6 million missing persons, 2 million refugees and all those abandoned swiss bank accounts. Again Occam's razor.
Vaccination is a more about what a person believes, and the individual circumstances (like primi's, genetic history, and living environment)
B) Occam's razor applies. Conspiracy to fake the Holocoust is invariably more complex than it would have been for an openly racist & facist regime to have done it.
C) You would need an alternative explanation for 6 million missing persons, 2 million refugees and all those abandoned swiss bank accounts. Again Occam's razor.
Vaccination is a more about what a person believes, and the individual circumstances (like primi's, genetic history, and living environment)
There are several people who believe the moon landings never happened. Just what I said - there are always people claiming the exact opposite from the official version. And it is not always obvious to tell who is right.
There are actually cases where several hundred years of history have been faked, so it is not that out there to consider such things.
"You would need an alternative explanation for 6 million missing persons, 2 million refugees and all those abandoned swiss bank accounts. Again Occam's razor."
The numbers don't seem so clear (how to confirm them?), that is what I mean by the missing traces. Supposedly the archives with papers (for example from the red cross) are still not open to the public.
Not that I want to make that argument, but it is one of the arguments of the revisionists: if the nazis supposedly were so efficient and bureaucratic, how come there are (supposedly) no documents about the missing persons? (Really, I just want to give an example of the kind of arguments - I have not tried to find the archives by myself, so I don't know enough to comment).
It seems the only choice is to either A) just belive the public version or B) dig through archives by oneself, which would be a huge investment of resources.
There are actually cases where several hundred years of history have been faked, so it is not that out there to consider such things.
"You would need an alternative explanation for 6 million missing persons, 2 million refugees and all those abandoned swiss bank accounts. Again Occam's razor."
The numbers don't seem so clear (how to confirm them?), that is what I mean by the missing traces. Supposedly the archives with papers (for example from the red cross) are still not open to the public.
Not that I want to make that argument, but it is one of the arguments of the revisionists: if the nazis supposedly were so efficient and bureaucratic, how come there are (supposedly) no documents about the missing persons? (Really, I just want to give an example of the kind of arguments - I have not tried to find the archives by myself, so I don't know enough to comment).
It seems the only choice is to either A) just belive the public version or B) dig through archives by oneself, which would be a huge investment of resources.
Or C) Go to the places where it happened and D) Talk to the people still alive that went through it, or E) Go to the museums and look at the massive pile of artifacts. A conspiracy in which there where hundreds of thousands of witnesses, with thousands still alive today, millions of artifacts spread around a dozen museums worldwide and multiple sites left in Europe would be so vast it would make the Truman Show look easy to pull off.
I did C and E and of course lots and lots of incredibly horrible things happened. I have not seen millions of artifacts, though - that would be impossible.
The museums are just emotional "pieces of art" in my opinion. They help me to learn something about the nature of humans.
The museums are just emotional "pieces of art" in my opinion. They help me to learn something about the nature of humans.
Michael Shermer, who has a Ph.D. degree in history, does a good job of reviewing historical evidence for the Holocaust, and responding to claims of deniers, in his book Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time
http://www.amazon.com/People-Believe-Weird-Things-Pseudoscie...
which is well worth a read.
You must be a good bit younger than I am if you don't personally know Holocaust survivors, or at least much more socially isolated from Jewish people of European heritage than I am.
http://www.amazon.com/People-Believe-Weird-Things-Pseudoscie...
which is well worth a read.
You must be a good bit younger than I am if you don't personally know Holocaust survivors, or at least much more socially isolated from Jewish people of European heritage than I am.
Unfortunately, living in Germany I don't know any Jews personally :-( The nazis killed or expelled most of them.
The book sounds interesting, will take a look.
I have read biographies by Jews, for example Marcel Reich-Ranicki is very famous in Germany and I trust his words.
The book sounds interesting, will take a look.
I have read biographies by Jews, for example Marcel Reich-Ranicki is very famous in Germany and I trust his words.
There are plenty of traces left, want to come and inspect the arms of some elderly Jewish couple here ? Or do you think they got their tattoos on a lark for a fashion ?
Sorry, but this really gets my dander up. If you can't be bothered to study history then you're possibly going to repeat part of it and that is a very scary thought.
Sorry, but this really gets my dander up. If you can't be bothered to study history then you're possibly going to repeat part of it and that is a very scary thought.
It depends on what you call the Holocaust. Anyway, I am not a Holocaust denier. I am not that well versed in history - but I suspect most people who have these strong opinions are not that well versed in history either. It is just the accepted fact and they don't think about it.
I only mentioned the HC because at times I stumbled upon such discussions. The discussions are of course all in the details, which I suspect is one of the signs for revisionism. At times I tried to validate or reject some of the claims and as I said, I found more question marks than answers. Then I decided to not research further because the subject is too dangerous. As I said, I accept that millions died and humans are evil.
I only mentioned the HC because at times I stumbled upon such discussions. The discussions are of course all in the details, which I suspect is one of the signs for revisionism. At times I tried to validate or reject some of the claims and as I said, I found more question marks than answers. Then I decided to not research further because the subject is too dangerous. As I said, I accept that millions died and humans are evil.
> It depends on what you call the Holocaust.
Sorry, no that's just weaseling out of something by playing the definition game.
Let me make it easy for you: between 11 and 17 million people, amongst them 6 million Jews got murdered for simply being who they were.
If you're Jewish you might want to use the word to mean 'just the six million jews', so there is a little leeway in the definition, but not enough to use that as a way to pretend that it didn't happen.
It did, and it's horrible.
> As I said, I accept that millions died and humans are evil.
There is a large difference between 'dying' and being brutally and systematically exterminated, the word is 'genocide'.
That said, I think everybody should be free to deny it as much as they please instead of having this criminalized, after all it's just an outward display of utter stupidity, and it helps to be able to identify the stupid people so we can keep them out of positions of power.
I also think that Israels actions of late are not in its own long term interest, but that's a wholly different kettle of fish and not really pertinent to the discussion.
> Then I decided to not research further because the subject is too dangerous.
This makes absolutely no sense to me, what was dangerous about the research ?
Sorry, no that's just weaseling out of something by playing the definition game.
Let me make it easy for you: between 11 and 17 million people, amongst them 6 million Jews got murdered for simply being who they were.
If you're Jewish you might want to use the word to mean 'just the six million jews', so there is a little leeway in the definition, but not enough to use that as a way to pretend that it didn't happen.
It did, and it's horrible.
> As I said, I accept that millions died and humans are evil.
There is a large difference between 'dying' and being brutally and systematically exterminated, the word is 'genocide'.
That said, I think everybody should be free to deny it as much as they please instead of having this criminalized, after all it's just an outward display of utter stupidity, and it helps to be able to identify the stupid people so we can keep them out of positions of power.
I also think that Israels actions of late are not in its own long term interest, but that's a wholly different kettle of fish and not really pertinent to the discussion.
> Then I decided to not research further because the subject is too dangerous.
This makes absolutely no sense to me, what was dangerous about the research ?
"This makes absolutely no sense to me, what was dangerous about the research ?"
Just see what happens here with the subject. If you start a discussion about it, you are quickly being pushed into the revisionist camp. In Germany that means your career is dead and you are forever an outcast of society.
I don't know if actual historians (like with a degree) are able to discuss the subject. But normal people can't.
Just see what happens here with the subject. If you start a discussion about it, you are quickly being pushed into the revisionist camp. In Germany that means your career is dead and you are forever an outcast of society.
I don't know if actual historians (like with a degree) are able to discuss the subject. But normal people can't.
There is nothing inherently dangerous about healthy debate, nobody pushed you into the revisionist camp, you simply made a claim that is - lets put it delicately - not mainstream.
Germany is still coming to terms with their part in all this and that is why they are over reacting, another big factor is that there is a definite surge in the numbers of neo-nazis.
The funniest thing is that some of the extremist rightwing people (notably Wilders) are best friends with Israel, I never really understood that one.
The revisionist bit comes from taking up the position that you think that because it happened before your time must mean that you have to be unsure about it because of a so-called lack of evidence.
The evidence is there for everybody who wants it to see it, no 'belief' is required.
Clever people in the revisionist camp abuse the basic insecurity people have about things that happened before they were born to push their own agenda forward, and with some success. Which is why you get the reactions you are seeing.
My parents and grandparents lived through the war in Europe, one of my grandfathers was sent to a work camp in Germany but fortunately survived, lots of people they knew were less fortunate. I know personally plenty of people where the whole family tree is balanced on a single survivor that made it - miraculously - out of one of the 'death camps'. To me it's all pretty real and very close to home.
Germany is still coming to terms with their part in all this and that is why they are over reacting, another big factor is that there is a definite surge in the numbers of neo-nazis.
The funniest thing is that some of the extremist rightwing people (notably Wilders) are best friends with Israel, I never really understood that one.
The revisionist bit comes from taking up the position that you think that because it happened before your time must mean that you have to be unsure about it because of a so-called lack of evidence.
The evidence is there for everybody who wants it to see it, no 'belief' is required.
Clever people in the revisionist camp abuse the basic insecurity people have about things that happened before they were born to push their own agenda forward, and with some success. Which is why you get the reactions you are seeing.
My parents and grandparents lived through the war in Europe, one of my grandfathers was sent to a work camp in Germany but fortunately survived, lots of people they knew were less fortunate. I know personally plenty of people where the whole family tree is balanced on a single survivor that made it - miraculously - out of one of the 'death camps'. To me it's all pretty real and very close to home.
"nobody pushed you into the revisionist camp, you simply made a claim that is - lets put it delicately - not mainstream."
I think you just did push me into the revisionist camp. I did not make a claim, except that there are people who deny the Holocaust. I also say that I personally can not verify it, but that is not making a claim.
Merely taking up the discussions means that you will mention arguments of the revisionists, which will end up making you look like a revisionist. Having a question about the HC makes you a non-believer.
I think you just did push me into the revisionist camp. I did not make a claim, except that there are people who deny the Holocaust. I also say that I personally can not verify it, but that is not making a claim.
Merely taking up the discussions means that you will mention arguments of the revisionists, which will end up making you look like a revisionist. Having a question about the HC makes you a non-believer.
> Having a question about the HC makes you a non-believer
I did not see you ask any questions, only state your doubt.
> I also say that I personally can not verify it,
Yes, you can. Find some camp survivors and have a chat with them, then wonder how we will remember when the last ones have died.
I did not see you ask any questions, only state your doubt.
> I also say that I personally can not verify it,
Yes, you can. Find some camp survivors and have a chat with them, then wonder how we will remember when the last ones have died.
re: the Holocaust, what part of it is that you're not sure of?
- That 9+ million people were killed?
- That this was done in a methodical and organized fashion?
- That the vast majority of the people killed were Jews, gays, gypsies, and other smaller/marginalized social groups?
I'm all for an organized and civilized debate, but if you want to do that without being called a nutjob, you need to clarify exactly what parts you are questioning, and provide a somewhat sound basis for doing that - i.e. if you have a problem with my first point, then explain why people think that, and why you disagree?
As Truzzi said, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." Questioning the Holocaust is a pretty extraordinary claim, so bring it...
- That 9+ million people were killed?
- That this was done in a methodical and organized fashion?
- That the vast majority of the people killed were Jews, gays, gypsies, and other smaller/marginalized social groups?
I'm all for an organized and civilized debate, but if you want to do that without being called a nutjob, you need to clarify exactly what parts you are questioning, and provide a somewhat sound basis for doing that - i.e. if you have a problem with my first point, then explain why people think that, and why you disagree?
As Truzzi said, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." Questioning the Holocaust is a pretty extraordinary claim, so bring it...
" That several million people were killed?
That this was done in a methodical and organized fashion?"
I think the actual numbers are what the debate is usually about. Also if the killing was planned from the beginning (I think some say that it was only later that it was decided on the killing - they knew they wanted to get rid of the jews, but no clear idea how). Many might have died from bad conditions (which is also killing them, but different from actively shooting or gassing them).
Edit: I don't really question the HC, I just say I don't know the details. As for the numbers, the criticisms I have heard are that there are no ways to validate them. There are no documents about missing persons that could be counted, and often it is unclear if they might just have fled the country. There are no mass graves, either. The criticism is that required archives are not open to the public (like from the red cross). I don't know if that is true or not.
That this was done in a methodical and organized fashion?"
I think the actual numbers are what the debate is usually about. Also if the killing was planned from the beginning (I think some say that it was only later that it was decided on the killing - they knew they wanted to get rid of the jews, but no clear idea how). Many might have died from bad conditions (which is also killing them, but different from actively shooting or gassing them).
Edit: I don't really question the HC, I just say I don't know the details. As for the numbers, the criticisms I have heard are that there are no ways to validate them. There are no documents about missing persons that could be counted, and often it is unclear if they might just have fled the country. There are no mass graves, either. The criticism is that required archives are not open to the public (like from the red cross). I don't know if that is true or not.
Also if the killing was planned from the beginning
Excerpt from a 1922 magazine interview with Hitler: "Once I really am in power, my first and foremost task will be the annihilation of the Jews. As soon as I have the power to do so, I will have gallows built in rows - at the Marienplatz in Munich, for example - as many as traffic allows. Then the Jews will be hanged indiscriminately, and they will remain hanging until they stink; they will hang there as long as the principles of hygiene permit. As soon as they have been untied, the next batch will be strung up, and so on down the line, until the last Jew in Munich has been exterminated. Other cities will follow suit, precisely in this fashion, until all Germany has been completely cleansed of Jews."
Excerpt from Hitler's speech to the Reichstag on January 30, 1939, seven months before Germany invaded Poland: "Today I want to be a prophet once more: if international finance Jewry inside and outside of Europe should succeed once more in plunging nations into another world war, the consequence will not be the Bolshevation of the earth and thereby the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe [die Vernichtung der jüdischen Rasse in Europa]".
(quoted in http://www.nizkor.org/qar-complete.cgi)
Excerpt from a 1922 magazine interview with Hitler: "Once I really am in power, my first and foremost task will be the annihilation of the Jews. As soon as I have the power to do so, I will have gallows built in rows - at the Marienplatz in Munich, for example - as many as traffic allows. Then the Jews will be hanged indiscriminately, and they will remain hanging until they stink; they will hang there as long as the principles of hygiene permit. As soon as they have been untied, the next batch will be strung up, and so on down the line, until the last Jew in Munich has been exterminated. Other cities will follow suit, precisely in this fashion, until all Germany has been completely cleansed of Jews."
Excerpt from Hitler's speech to the Reichstag on January 30, 1939, seven months before Germany invaded Poland: "Today I want to be a prophet once more: if international finance Jewry inside and outside of Europe should succeed once more in plunging nations into another world war, the consequence will not be the Bolshevation of the earth and thereby the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe [die Vernichtung der jüdischen Rasse in Europa]".
(quoted in http://www.nizkor.org/qar-complete.cgi)
No doubt that Hitler wanted to kill them, true.
Searching for 'holocaust mass graves' turns up several results on the front page just of fairly recent discoveries, with locations etc. that you could try to verify. If archives are not open to the public then perhaps you should press for them to be put online for the sake of historical interest, or get in touch with a historian who could help to make this case.
It sounds like you're sincere and just trying to find high quality of evidence, but statements to the effect that 'there are no mass graves' seem to contradict established fact.
It sounds like you're sincere and just trying to find high quality of evidence, but statements to the effect that 'there are no mass graves' seem to contradict established fact.
Apparently the mass graves were indeed a false quote I found, sorry about that. I was at times drawn into the discussion and started to look for some facts (especially on all the anti-revisionist web sites I was pointed to). But ultimately I ended up deciding that the subject is not important enough for me to invest the time. It would have to be a full time job, and I am not a historian.
I am sorry I mentioned the issue.
I am sorry I mentioned the issue.
As for the numbers, the criticisms I have heard are that there are no ways to validate them.
There are demographic statistics on the number of Jews in Europe before and after World War II. These numbers have a margin of error, but if three million Jews had escaped from Eastern Europe to the USSR instead of being killed, it's hard to imagine how this fact could be covered up.
There are demographic statistics on the number of Jews in Europe before and after World War II. These numbers have a margin of error, but if three million Jews had escaped from Eastern Europe to the USSR instead of being killed, it's hard to imagine how this fact could be covered up.
I don't know enough about it to comment. It's just the kind of criticism I have heard in discussions. Sorry for bringing the subject up at all.
There are more than a "hardly any traces left", you just haven't looked for them.
My great grandfather is still alive today with the numbers on his arm, he didn't tattoo that on for fun.
My great grandfather is still alive today with the numbers on his arm, he didn't tattoo that on for fun.
If you think it's an important issue, read up on it. Read arguments from people on as many different sides of the issue as you can, and be sure to read up on the responses to those arguments from different sides of the issue.
Pay attention to peer-reviewed studies and meta-studies - look for data that you can study and verify.
Pay attention as well to the manner in which arguments are made. If an argument resorts to informal fallacies like ad hominem attacks, cherry picking data, bait-and-switch and so on, be even more highly skeptical.
It's also important to understand whether the person making the argument has any conflicts of interest (e.g. their own paycheck depends on a particular point of view taking precedence over policy). However, it doesn't automatically follow that such a person is being dishonest just because they stand to benefit from the adoption of their particular stance.
Pay attention to peer-reviewed studies and meta-studies - look for data that you can study and verify.
Pay attention as well to the manner in which arguments are made. If an argument resorts to informal fallacies like ad hominem attacks, cherry picking data, bait-and-switch and so on, be even more highly skeptical.
It's also important to understand whether the person making the argument has any conflicts of interest (e.g. their own paycheck depends on a particular point of view taking precedence over policy). However, it doesn't automatically follow that such a person is being dishonest just because they stand to benefit from the adoption of their particular stance.
I tried reading up on global warming, but it seems surprisingly hard to find any information. The only "big" web sites on the topic were run by anti-global-warmists, naturally they were full of charts and stuff.
How does one even find peer-reviewed information - by looking into "certified" journals? And don't the revisionists have peers as well?
"If an argument resorts to informal fallacies like ad hominem attacks, cherry picking data, bait-and-switch and so on, be even more highly skeptical."
Agreed, these tend to be fairly clear signs. My favorite is the inevitable claim that "faction x can only resort to personal attacks", which is of course also a personal attack ;-)
How does one even find peer-reviewed information - by looking into "certified" journals? And don't the revisionists have peers as well?
"If an argument resorts to informal fallacies like ad hominem attacks, cherry picking data, bait-and-switch and so on, be even more highly skeptical."
Agreed, these tend to be fairly clear signs. My favorite is the inevitable claim that "faction x can only resort to personal attacks", which is of course also a personal attack ;-)
There's a subreddit called hardscience dedicated to only scientific papers. I've seen a few on global warming there. So that might be a good place to start.
http://www.reddit.com/r/hardscience/
http://www.reddit.com/r/hardscience/
The problem with looking for scientific support is it comes in tiny pieces. Going back 30 years you find the early stuff is looking at the general trends but people don't republish the same report looking at the same data. So if you want to get a solid understanding of what scientists think you really need to read a few hundred technical reports each of which is a tiny slice of the pie. You also need to verify that each of those reports is based on solid science and created by people without significant bias; luckily if you go far enough back the issue is not all that controversial so the age of the publication is a good indicator of quality.
It would be nice to have a reliable way to avoid that much work, but if you try to shortcut this you are going to be faced with summery information that's of questionable quality.
It would be nice to have a reliable way to avoid that much work, but if you try to shortcut this you are going to be faced with summery information that's of questionable quality.
Evaluating a big controversial issue is hard for reasons analogous to the "curse of dimensionality" when numerically computing multidimensional integrals: a grid with step 1/k in N-dimensional space has ~k^N points, way too many to sample them all. People solve this problem in practice by the Monte Carlo method: sampling points at random and averaging their values converges to the true integral much faster. So if some major topic has two opposite factions, pick a random tiny factual detail where they disagree, and honestly work out for yourself which side is right about it. Repeat several times to get a big picture with pretty good statistical assurance.
Some examples:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soap_made_from_human_corpses
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droit_de_seigneur
http://www.snopes.com/food/ingredient/carrots.asp
Some examples:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soap_made_from_human_corpses
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droit_de_seigneur
http://www.snopes.com/food/ingredient/carrots.asp
(Edited)
To me the Holocaust is even more certain than evolution because I grew up with the stories of it from my grandparents. But if you don't have those stories in your family, you can also look at books, museums, photographs, eyewitness accounts. The sources for facts are endless.
Being concerned about revisionism, I would have thought the OP is worried about losing such facts, but then this thread turned into an outlet for your unwillingness to accept the holocaust.
If you weren't German, I'd simply call you an asshole, but one can imagine it being hard to believe that peers of your grandparents were responsible for killing millions of people for no reason other than race. Although coming from Germany, you should be much better informed than the average holocaust denier, from say, Iran.
Half of my grandmother's family was machine-gunned into a pit outside of Kiev called Babiy Yar with about 30 thousand other Jews by German SS during the first weeks of German occupation. The bodies, bullets, and cartridges are all still there. The executions at Babiy Yar went on for months until no more Jews could be found in the region, at which point the site was used to execute gypsies, prisoners, etc. These events were witnessed by thousands of residents of Kiev during the occupation by German forces, and you can read one such account in the book called Babiy Yar by Anatoliy Kuznecov.
Google image results:
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=babi+yar&sou...
When you look at hundreds of individual mass execution events like this one, you get a more complete picture of the Holocaust.
To me the Holocaust is even more certain than evolution because I grew up with the stories of it from my grandparents. But if you don't have those stories in your family, you can also look at books, museums, photographs, eyewitness accounts. The sources for facts are endless.
Being concerned about revisionism, I would have thought the OP is worried about losing such facts, but then this thread turned into an outlet for your unwillingness to accept the holocaust.
If you weren't German, I'd simply call you an asshole, but one can imagine it being hard to believe that peers of your grandparents were responsible for killing millions of people for no reason other than race. Although coming from Germany, you should be much better informed than the average holocaust denier, from say, Iran.
Half of my grandmother's family was machine-gunned into a pit outside of Kiev called Babiy Yar with about 30 thousand other Jews by German SS during the first weeks of German occupation. The bodies, bullets, and cartridges are all still there. The executions at Babiy Yar went on for months until no more Jews could be found in the region, at which point the site was used to execute gypsies, prisoners, etc. These events were witnessed by thousands of residents of Kiev during the occupation by German forces, and you can read one such account in the book called Babiy Yar by Anatoliy Kuznecov.
Google image results:
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=babi+yar&sou...
When you look at hundreds of individual mass execution events like this one, you get a more complete picture of the Holocaust.
"outlet for your unwillingness to accept the holocaust."
I do accept the holocaust, it is merely another big issue that displays the revisionism phenomenon. I wish I hadn't mentioned it, though.
Please be careful before labeling people holocaust revisionists. At least in Germany it is not a harmless thing to accuse somebody of.
Edit: I have also seen a lot of pictures like that. In Germany we have school trips to concentration camps. I don't doubt the cruelty of the nazi time.
I do accept the holocaust, it is merely another big issue that displays the revisionism phenomenon. I wish I hadn't mentioned it, though.
Please be careful before labeling people holocaust revisionists. At least in Germany it is not a harmless thing to accuse somebody of.
Edit: I have also seen a lot of pictures like that. In Germany we have school trips to concentration camps. I don't doubt the cruelty of the nazi time.
I suggest reading R. A. Lyttleton on the nature of knowledge:
http://amasci.com/freenrg/bead.txt
The scientific attitude to adopt in regard to any hypothesis in my view (and we are talking of subjective things,) can be represented schemat- ically by means of a simple model of a bead that can be moved on a short length of horizontal wire (see diagram on next page). Suppose the left-hand end denoted by 0 (zero) and the right-hand end by 1 (unity), and let 0 correspond to complete disbelief unqualified, and the right-hand end 1 to absolute certain belief in the hypothesis. Now the principle of practice that I would urge on all intending scientists in regard to any and every hypothesis is: never let your bead quite reach the position 0 or 1
Once you're freed of the need to be absolutely certain of whether something is right or wrong, you can, in a more relaxed way, think about what the most sensible level of skepticism for any controversial issue about the way the world really is. Frinstance I'd say that the chance of creationism being right is something on the order of 10^-8. The chance of vaccinations being dangerous is maybe 10^-2, and the chances of them being more dangerous than the alternative maybe 10^-3. Peak oil? I dunno, 20%, depending what you mean by "peak oil". Holocaust denial comes in many forms from the lunatic to the nitpicky, each one needs its own level of skepticism. The "global warming" issue has quite unlikely positions on both sides with more plausible ones in the middle. And so on.
http://amasci.com/freenrg/bead.txt
The scientific attitude to adopt in regard to any hypothesis in my view (and we are talking of subjective things,) can be represented schemat- ically by means of a simple model of a bead that can be moved on a short length of horizontal wire (see diagram on next page). Suppose the left-hand end denoted by 0 (zero) and the right-hand end by 1 (unity), and let 0 correspond to complete disbelief unqualified, and the right-hand end 1 to absolute certain belief in the hypothesis. Now the principle of practice that I would urge on all intending scientists in regard to any and every hypothesis is: never let your bead quite reach the position 0 or 1
Once you're freed of the need to be absolutely certain of whether something is right or wrong, you can, in a more relaxed way, think about what the most sensible level of skepticism for any controversial issue about the way the world really is. Frinstance I'd say that the chance of creationism being right is something on the order of 10^-8. The chance of vaccinations being dangerous is maybe 10^-2, and the chances of them being more dangerous than the alternative maybe 10^-3. Peak oil? I dunno, 20%, depending what you mean by "peak oil". Holocaust denial comes in many forms from the lunatic to the nitpicky, each one needs its own level of skepticism. The "global warming" issue has quite unlikely positions on both sides with more plausible ones in the middle. And so on.
It seems like you are mixing up revisionism with coming to a conclusion about a debatable topic. The holocaust and global warming are not differences of scale - they are differences of kind.
If you question whether the holocaust occurred, you should also be questioning any other events which you didn't personally observe. And maybe even ones which did happen to you. So unless this kind of philosophical debate is what you are wrestling with, including the holocaust on your list muddies the question you are asking.
If you question whether the holocaust occurred, you should also be questioning any other events which you didn't personally observe. And maybe even ones which did happen to you. So unless this kind of philosophical debate is what you are wrestling with, including the holocaust on your list muddies the question you are asking.
"The holocaust and global warming are not differences of scale - they are differences of kind."
With global warming there are at least four positions argued: GW is real and man-made, and we need to take direct action against it; GW is bogus; GW is real and man-made, but a cost/benefit analysis for allocation of limited resources says we should still spend time and money on other things (fighting malaria, improving education) besides carbon reduction; GW is real but natural, so attempts to change it via human behavior are a waste.
The mainstream media (and many online writers) like to portray controversy (real or invented) as having only two sides: Politics is always left v right, Democrat v Republican (there's no in-between or off-the-2d-axis thinking); health care reform debate is only for or against the Obama plan (you can't possibly be for reform yet think Obama's plan is wrong); global warming is either a man-made issue that demands immediate direct efforts or else it's total nonsense (one cannot possibly agree with the science but disagree about what's the best use of time and money).
There are two issues here. One is how to deal with out-and-out revisionists. The other is how to encourage healthy debate on complex nuanced topics, part of which is to not demonize as revisionists or deniers or obstructionists all dissenters from the orthodox view.
With global warming there are at least four positions argued: GW is real and man-made, and we need to take direct action against it; GW is bogus; GW is real and man-made, but a cost/benefit analysis for allocation of limited resources says we should still spend time and money on other things (fighting malaria, improving education) besides carbon reduction; GW is real but natural, so attempts to change it via human behavior are a waste.
The mainstream media (and many online writers) like to portray controversy (real or invented) as having only two sides: Politics is always left v right, Democrat v Republican (there's no in-between or off-the-2d-axis thinking); health care reform debate is only for or against the Obama plan (you can't possibly be for reform yet think Obama's plan is wrong); global warming is either a man-made issue that demands immediate direct efforts or else it's total nonsense (one cannot possibly agree with the science but disagree about what's the best use of time and money).
There are two issues here. One is how to deal with out-and-out revisionists. The other is how to encourage healthy debate on complex nuanced topics, part of which is to not demonize as revisionists or deniers or obstructionists all dissenters from the orthodox view.
"you should also be questioning any other events which you didn't personally observe."
Well I take it for granted that most things I see on the news are not the truth, and that I can never know the truth if I haven't been there (and even then it is debatable, as you point out). For example in wars, the official history version gets written by the winners of the wars. That is actually one reason why I avoid firm opinions about WW2 - since I witnessed the "official history fabrication" in several cases during my lifetime, why should it have been any different for WW2?
I also can not personally experience the global warming or not warming. I don't see how the HC is very different from the rest of the list?
Well I take it for granted that most things I see on the news are not the truth, and that I can never know the truth if I haven't been there (and even then it is debatable, as you point out). For example in wars, the official history version gets written by the winners of the wars. That is actually one reason why I avoid firm opinions about WW2 - since I witnessed the "official history fabrication" in several cases during my lifetime, why should it have been any different for WW2?
I also can not personally experience the global warming or not warming. I don't see how the HC is very different from the rest of the list?
Just for the sake of curiosity: do you believe the Roman Empire existed?
Sure, why not? There are plenty of roman ruins to be seen everywhere. Then again, I was just told they are roman ruins...
Let's say that in 10% of controversies of this nature, The Scientific Consensus is wrong and the revisionists are actually correct. I personally don't have time to review every controversy in enough depth to decide which ones belong to that 10%. For issues that I care about I may read enough critical work to form an opinion about whether or not the critics are kooks, and if they aren't kooks, then I may do enough follow-up reading to decide whether or not they are right. For issues that I really care about I may learn enough that I can advance arguments for one side or the other in my own words. For issues that I don't have time to look at, I assume that The Scientific Consensus is correct.
As Carl Sagan said, they laughed at Galileo and they laughed at Einstein, but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
As Carl Sagan said, they laughed at Galileo and they laughed at Einstein, but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
In many of these cases, the sides are not proportional at all. One side will consist of consensus by a large group of various kinds of experts and scientist, whereas the other might consist of a much smaller group of religious lunatics.
That's not "debate". That's just random lunacy.
That's not "debate". That's just random lunacy.
Imagine that you are living in 15th century England. Christianity is followed by a large group of experts and scientists (and everyone else as well.) Do you then conclude that atheism is just random lunacy? (If you happen to be Christian, you can do this thought experiment somewhere else--15th century Persia, for instance.)
The consensus theory of truth is a good starting point, but it is not sufficient.
The consensus theory of truth is a good starting point, but it is not sufficient.
Agree completely. This idea was eloquently expressed by yosefk:
Q: All those C++ users and overlords can't be wrong, can they? Why should I believe you?
A: This sort of thinking will get you in trouble, since it's recursive and it has no termination condition. Very large groups of people with the usual subset of those having impressive credentials are known to have been wrong for very long periods of time (the flat Earth issue comes to mind; these people weren't stupid, mind you, "wrong" and "stupid" is not the same thing). Supposing you are in a group of people who are wrong right now, how do you plan to find it out using your kind of thinking?
Q: All those C++ users and overlords can't be wrong, can they? Why should I believe you?
A: This sort of thinking will get you in trouble, since it's recursive and it has no termination condition. Very large groups of people with the usual subset of those having impressive credentials are known to have been wrong for very long periods of time (the flat Earth issue comes to mind; these people weren't stupid, mind you, "wrong" and "stupid" is not the same thing). Supposing you are in a group of people who are wrong right now, how do you plan to find it out using your kind of thinking?
That's a completely different case. When the dissenting opinion is held by scientist, I think it has some value. When it's held by people who refuse to even consider applying the scientific method (creationists, for instance), you should just outright ignore them.
The only one I where I can confidently say the deniers are wrong is evolution theory . . . I can even run experiments . . .
Maybe you have an excessive need for certainty. Most people who enjoy thinking about these sorts of issues at all are willing to come to a conclusion without running their own personal experiments or doing primary source research.
You could consider making your views less informed and more tentative. It's not so bad if you have some wrong opinions. Almost certainly you do, some on subjects you've never even thought to question.
That said, you might find lesswrong.com and overcomingbias.com interesting places to hang out.
Maybe you have an excessive need for certainty. Most people who enjoy thinking about these sorts of issues at all are willing to come to a conclusion without running their own personal experiments or doing primary source research.
You could consider making your views less informed and more tentative. It's not so bad if you have some wrong opinions. Almost certainly you do, some on subjects you've never even thought to question.
That said, you might find lesswrong.com and overcomingbias.com interesting places to hang out.
Whenever there are rational proponents on both sides of a controversial issue I tend to view the "official" position with at least some degree of suspicion, especially when there are politics involved (e.g. global warming, vaccinations).
But why? Your attitude is one of the reasons I tend to view the opposing opinion with suspicion, because I suspect many people only choose that faction because it is the "being against it" faction and the underdog.
Because there may be an underlying political interest in maintaining the "official" position. For example, if anthropogenic climate change is "fact", and not just a theory, then legislation such as cap and trade may be easier to pass.
Also, when people adopt an unfashionable or non-PC position they are more likely to experience ostracism and even persecution. That would seem to be a significant barrier to entry into these "opposing factions".
Also, when people adopt an unfashionable or non-PC position they are more likely to experience ostracism and even persecution. That would seem to be a significant barrier to entry into these "opposing factions".
For the specific issue of the Holocaust, I believe the go-to anti-revisionist site on the Internet is the Nizkor Project:
http://www.nizkor.org/
http://www.nizkor.org/
Thanks for the link!
You answered your own question. Learn enough to convince yourself.
- global warming
- peak oil
- evolution
- vaccinations
- holocaust
- and so on...
The only one I where I can confidently say the deniers are wrong is evolution theory. That is because I know enough about it to validate it logically (to a degree that satisfies me personally), and I can even run experiments in my computer that demonstrate evolution at work.
Maybe it is best to simply ignore most of the issues. Just wondering if HN has some other ideas.