Certain topics should not be allowed on sciforums

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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."

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

@ 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.

 

My irony circuits just melted...

 

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?

 

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.

 

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

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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).

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.

 

Second and third hand sources?

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

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Is WWII a hoax?

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, 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.

 

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.

 

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

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.

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.

 

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?