Mengele dumps kids into fire (continuation)

[michael mills]

Roberto wrote:

When will he provide the quotes related to Langbein's exchanges with Wirths that I requested in my last post on this thread?

You didn't get cold feet, did you, Mr. Mills?

It's in Langbein's book "Menschen in Auschwitz". Try reading it.

[Scott Smith]

Smith hopes to insulate his errors from proper criticism by staking claim to a subjective reality.

And Smith waits with baited-breath while would-be Inquisitor, Lord Chuck shows him the promised land of Error.
:roll:

[Roberto]

Roberto wrote:

When will he provide the quotes related to Langbein's exchanges with Wirths that I requested in my last post on this thread?

You didn't get cold feet, did you, Mr. Mills?

It's in Langbein's book "Menschen in Auschwitz". Try reading it.

Looks like what I just wrote on the thread

A review about the preventive war
http://www.thirdreichforum.com/phpBB2/v ... 998ac06f33

also applies to this case.

I cannot say that Michael Mills' position is not in line with the manual, however:

1. Creamed Mush with Fog Sauce -- Never provide evidence for your assertions. In fact, respond to demands for evidence the way Dracula responds to crucifixes. Do anything you can to avoid it. Throw insults. Change the subject. Obfuscate. Laugh derisively. Claim you already gave the evidence or that someone else did. But never provide any evidence yourself (unless you provide an incomplete or incomprehensible citation along with it).

Source of quote:

How To Be A Revisionist Scholar, by Michael Philips

http://www.einsatzgruppenarchives.com/revisionism.html

[Qvist]

Scott - a very brief reply as I am severely pressed for time today.

1. There is IMO little reason to assume that Hume was in reality addressing broader issues than those of empirical reason versus religious faith. This issue was a mainstay of 18th century discussion, and he was going far beyond the spirit of the age in questioning miracles in this fashion. To extend his reasoning to include all orthodoxy is simply not a legitimate reading of him. You can of course make the point, but you cannot invoke it as Humes point.

2. I blankly disagree that one can equate whatever view is prominent in the historiography of any subject with any sort of religious belief. Even according to your basic premise, that the state of research is founded not on valid fact but on belief, with which I strongly disagree, it remains for you to make that point by empirical means, if you want to avoid being guilty of the same thing yourself. If current historiography has the facts wrong, then show us the right facts. I cant say I see you offering anything more than faith and opinion yourself.

cheers

[Charles Bunch]

Smith hopes to insulate his errors from proper criticism by staking claim to a subjective reality.

And Smith waits with baited-breath while would-be Inquisitor, Lord Chuck shows him the promised land of Error.

You have already been shown your error. You were in error concerning Hume's definition of "miracle" and therefore you attempted use of him to support ignoring testimonial evidence of Nazi atrocities. You were in error when you claimed his definition might have been a "constrained" reaction to religious dogma, and you were in error when you claimed he was outwardly not skeptical of religious miracles.

How may more do you need?

[Erik]

Perhaps Mr Wendel already has closed this thread on account of it’s being “off topic”?

What has an old-fashioned fuddy-duddy like Hume to do with Mengele dumping kids into fire?

Somebody has said that “we” all see the world through the eyes of some long dead geniuses. In the world of the intellect “we” are all “cloned”, so to speak.

To the “un-cloned” part of my (Erik’s!) intellect, the world is flat as a pancake. I would readily accept that it is supported by the back of a big turtle – or the back of Atlas, or what have you!….Unless I accepted that those old fogeys mentioned could teach me something (or some shoolmaster whipped me to their wisdom, of course! But they had stopped teaching like that when I was young, even), I would be a natural flat-earther.

Which leads to the world of Holocaust Orthodoxy, where sceptics (and deniers, of course!) have been compared to “flat-earthers” (by Lipstadt et al).

Why not accept some “cloning” of the intellect to see the self-evidence of THAT world, too?

Just “follow the facts”?

Are there “ideological bubbles” that hinder some of us to see the light, and make us stumble on the straight and narrow way to Revealed Truth?

Stupidity?

Mr Qvist wrote:

Hume's point is certainly not one between orthodoxy and skepticism, but between two wholly different epistemological paradigms, as far as the question of miracles is concerned. This is not the case with the discussion on the Holocaust, or for that matter, on any other historical subject.

And

In history, there are things that can be reasonably established through sources, and things that can not. That's all.

To my flat-earthly, “un-cloned” mind it appears that “Hume’s point” …”as far as the question of miracles is concerned”..makes it out that miracles certainly are “things that can be reasonably established through sources”.

And then he examinated the sources of those miracles. And reasoned.

The first quote from Hume above came from his History of England, and concerned the “miracles” attributed to Joan of Arc (i.e., “the present case”).

Hume reasoned:

It is the business of history to distinguish between the miraculous and the marvellous; to reject the first in all narrations merely profane and human; to doubt the second; and when obliged by unquestionable testimony, as in the present case, to admit of something extraordinary, to receive as little of it as is consistent with the known facts and circumstances.

Are the “miraculous” and the “marvellous” …”two wholly different epistemological paradigms”?

“Rejection” and “Doubt” likewise so?

But what is the difference between the “miraculous and the marvellous”?

A miracle may be accurately defined, a transgression of a law of nature by a particular volition of the Deity, or by the interposition of some invisible agent. A miracle may either be discoverable by men or not. This alters not its nature and essence. The raising of a house or ship into the air is a visible miracle. The raising of a feather, when the wind wants ever so little of a force requisite for that purpose, is as real a miracle, though not so sensible with regard to us.

(Section X ”Of Miracles”, in An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, the last note to Part I). (Hume’s own italics.)

Being an European in a country where nature is rather placid, I’ve never seen houses or ships raising ”into the air”. But I have been able to walk on water since childhood – at least during certain seasons.

Now, that’s marvellous. But a miracle?

Why is Hume using the word ”miracle” in this context? Perhaps because it looks like a miracle – i. e., ”visibly”? Until you locate the interposition of the ”invisible agent”. In pre-scientific times the agents could be Aeolus or Boreas, respectively – the gods of wind and winter.

But according to the definition of Hume it was still ”as real a miracle, though not so sensible with regard to us”, even if you located the agent. Perhaps because it looked like a miracle – STILL???
Even if you had identified the agent!!

Our world around us IS a miracle of a sort, isn’t it? To a child, the raising of a feather within it’s sight is a miracle – ”period”.

Then why not accept that something appears to be a miracle, and let the agent – visible or not – be what or whoever it is alleged to be? ”Amaze yourself”!

Hume write in ”Of Miracles” :

We entertain a suspicion concerning any matter of fact, when the witnesses contradict each other; when they are but few, or of a doubtful character; when they have an interest in what they affirm; when they deliver their testimony with hesitation, or on the contrary, with too violent asseverations. There are many other particulars of the same kind, which may diminish or destroy the force of any argument, derived from human testimony.
Suppose, for instance, that the fact, which the testimony endeavours to establish, partakes of the extraordinary and the marvellous; in that case, the evidence, resulting from the testimony, admits of a diminution, greater or less, in proportion as the fact is more or less unusual. The reason why we place any credit in witnesses and historians, is not derived from any connexion, which we perceive a priori, between testimony and reality, but because we are accustomed to find a conformity between them. But when the fact attested is such a one as has seldom fallen under our observation, here is a contest of two opposite experiences; of which the one destroys the other, as far as its force goes, and the superior can only operate on the mind by the force, which remains. The very same principle of experience, which gives us a certain degree of assurance in the testimony of witnesses, gives us also, in this case, another degree of assurance against the fact, which they endeavour to establish; from which contradiction there necessarily arises a counterpoize, and mutual destruction of belief and authority.

What ´”paradigm” of Hume is this, that it cannot be applied to any ”matter of fact” (sic) that ”is more or less unusual”(sic)? Doesn’t Hume understand himself?

Scott Smith wrote:

But I supported my contention that when Hume meant claims of miracles he was not merely talking about divine-intervention or demonology but of unusual occurrences or weird claims as well--and I used a dictionary of the English language to support that interpretation. Hume must have used a different dictionary when he wrote the word miracles.

Mr Bunch wrote:

A philosopher who uses a term with significance to a substantial argument defines his term. That is elementary to philosophy. Smith's ignorance of this basic fact ought to cause him to pause, but he's in so deep now he doesn't know how to extricate himself.

When a philosopher defines his terms it is a signal that he places significance in its precision. Hume does this and discusses the implications of it for many paragraphs in a two part section named "Miracles". But if Smith thinks he can understand philosophy by using dictionary definitons, that's his problem. But there is no support in Hume for discounting the testimony of Holocaust eyewitnesses based on his skepticism of miracles.

J C A Gaskin (in the Cambridge Companion to Hume, chapter 11, side 329 – see my first posting above, side 2) writes :

“Indeed, “Of Miracles” is manifestily one of those rare philosophical pieces whose very inconsistencies and ambiguities are more fruitful than the cautious balance of a thousand lesser works.”

The inconsistencies that Gaskin points out doesn’t make Hume less “fruitful”, apparently.


Hume wrote (in the second paragraph of “Of Miracles”):

I flatter myself, that I have discovered an argument of a like nature

(to bishop Tillotsons argument against the real presence of Our Lord at the Eucharist. Hume wrote:

But a weaker evidence can never destroy a stronger; and therefore, were the doctrine of the real presence ever so clearly revealed in scripture, it were directly contrary to the rules of just reasoning to give our assent to it. It contradicts sense, though both the scripture and tradition, on which it is supposed to be built, carry not such evidence with them as sense; when they are considered merely as external evidences, and are not brought home to every one's breast, by the immediate operation of the Holy Spirit.

)

which, if just, will, with the wise and learned, be an everlasting check to all kinds of superstitious delusion, and consequently, will be useful as long as the world endures. For so long, I presume, will the accounts of miracles and prodigies be found in all history, sacred and profane.

(My emphasis.)

Since Mr Smith and your humble servant allegedly belong to the mindless morons that “cut and paste” instead of having points or reason, we will be forever victims of “ideological bubbles”, “found in all history, sacred and profane”.

But can’t Hume and his “argument” be used against THOSE? The bubbles?

What do you say, Mr Qvist? Mr Bunch?

[Marcus]

Let's get back on topic.

/Marcus

[Scott Smith]

Scott - a very brief reply as I am severely pressed for time today.

1. There is IMO little reason to assume that Hume was in reality addressing broader issues than those of empirical reason versus religious faith. This issue was a mainstay of 18th century discussion, and he was going far beyond the spirit of the age in questioning miracles in this fashion. To extend his reasoning to include all orthodoxy is simply not a legitimate reading of him. You can of course make the point, but you cannot invoke it as Humes point.

Well, I can't change the nouns in Hume's treatise and make him write about Dachau, but I didn't use him to do that. I originally used Hume to make MY point about whether we should believe in "miracles," barring specific proof; and my subsequent additional readings of Hume's commentators regarding Chuck's points do not dissuade me at all. I had originally intended to find an academic article supporting my interpretation here but then the matter dropped and I don't think Chuck would be convinced anyway, since he has all the answers, and can tell us everything we need to know about Hume and Hobbes--when he can keep them straight. Furthermore, if I did find a specific article about Dr. Blaha's baloney, Chuck would consider it Denial unless it were an Article of Faith or Damage Control; if it were not specific to Dachau or Auschwitz then he would say that it was misapplied by me, of course.

The bottom line is that for anyone who can understand it, I think I made my point.

2. I blankly disagree that one can equate whatever view is prominent in the historiography of any subject with any sort of religious belief. Even according to your basic premise, that the state of research is founded not on valid fact but on belief, with which I strongly disagree, it remains for you to make that point by empirical means, if you want to avoid being guilty of the same thing yourself. If current historiography has the facts wrong, then show us the right facts. I cant say I see you offering anything more than faith and opinion yourself.

From the standpoint of cultural-history, I don't think you can ignore mass-psychology and Groupthink. But the Holocaust isn't one monolithic ball-of-wax. Truth here and a true-fact there doesn't have to correlate with the popularity of an idea. You say I don't have any empirical evidence--well, if we had any "credible empirical evidence" there wouldn't be much controversy among "normal, rational people," would there? Yet the historiography goes forward despite a lack of evidence. I maintain that there is ample justification for skepticism for at least some of these "facts."


Mr. Mills conceded some possible explanations but they don't satisfy Chuck. That's why I wanted to get him on record as to what HE finds believable here. What we are talking about is whether the Nazis burned babies alive--and the evidence, though sensational, is scant. Furthermore, it cannot be corroborated in a more objective manner than by the testimonial of fantasy-prone personalities like Dr. Blaha. So yes, not all historiography is Groupthink. But it certainly applies here. In fact, the "convergence of evidence" between sources only heightens my skepticism that a group-dynamic is involved, e.g., mythology. Nor do I trust the epistemological methods of the Allied and even Bundestablishment courts to find any truths about Nazis other than lurid Greuelpropaganda. My bias is upfront.

If Chuck and I both make an empirical observation about the weather--I say it's raining and he says its cold--that doesn't tell us as much as if we each take the temperature. If our numbers don't agree, who do you then trust to get it right, Qvist? Perhaps a disinterested third party for corroboration? Between two measurements using standard instruments and methods, and a third using a disinterested-party, you can probably say with assurance that the temperature is "correct" with some allowable variances. We surely don't have anything like that kind of evidence here, do we?

What we have is something more like a claim that it was snowing in July. It's not impossible, and may even be likely in some climates, though Scottsdale isn't one of them. But is it likely? If it's not likely then it is not probable--simple--unless it is more improbable for its NOT having snowed to have occurred. This would be the case in January in most climates (again, Scottsdale not being one of them).

Chuck thinks it was rather typical for Germans/Nazis to bonfire babies alive. I think that is rather preposterous. It is about as likely as July snow in Scottsdale based on known experience. We have the Moloch-myth, the Evil Gentiles that anyone who has studied the Bible knows about. We have Eisenstein's version of the Teutonic Knights doing it in Alexander Nevsky, (1938). And we have Dr. Blaha at Dachau and the stories from Battleship Auschwitz above. Obviously that constitutes empirical evidence to some people that is congruent to snows typical in January, the likelihood to have happened is far greater than not to have happened--except in Scottsdale.


I hypothesize that some Groupthink is involved. In any case, there are other more-likely explanations than UFO-abductions for the thousands of people who--more or less credibly, according to Dr. John Mack--Bear Witness to such traumas (real or imagined). To say that this is not probable without credible evidence to establish the fact as true is not to say that it is impossible, which would be proving a negative. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Perhaps I should ask YOU whether the evidence provided on the forum for baby-barbecues and Human Soap is compelling for you. And why? All I can say is that I feel confident that it is bunk. And those who would rescue it I find curious.

[Scott Smith]

Smith hopes to insulate his errors from proper criticism by staking claim to a subjective reality.

And Smith waits with baited-breath while would-be Inquisitor, Lord Chuck shows him the promised land of Error.

You have already been shown your error. You were in error concerning Hume's definition of "miracle" and therefore you attempted use of him to support ignoring testimonial evidence of Nazi atrocities. You were in error when you claimed his definition might have been a "constrained" reaction to religious dogma, and you were in error when you claimed he was outwardly not skeptical of religious miracles.

How may more do you need?

I said I was willing to agree to disagree. That is a problem for you as it is with most dogmatists.

Am I wrong? Maybe.

Are you wrong? Of course not!

[Erik]

Mr Wendel.

Thanks for accepting the posting, although allegedly "off topic".

But the topic of child-sacrifice and other inhumanities has been pondered upon not only by the credulous and the superstitious that accused the Jews of such practices, for example - also the accused have been forced to face the "challenge" of "defamation".

There must be a "method" to defend our common humanity against credulities in this day and age, too - just as against cruelties.

David Hume is a philosopher that supplies some "tools" when it comes to "reading" the past and the present "evidences".

If these "tools" are dismissed as misapplied when it comes to certain "self-evidences", then we are back to the days of witch-hunting and it's taboos. IMHO.

In other words, it is not really as "off topic" as it seems.

[Roberto]

Furthermore, it cannot be corroborated in a more objective manner than by the testimonial of fantasy-prone personalities like Dr. Blaha.

Blaha was considered unreliable by criminal justice authorities and historians because he changed his accounts too often, IIRC.

Blaha's depositions referred to Dachau, by the way, not to Auschwitz.

And what does Blaha's lack of reliability tell us about the reliability of the witnesses to the Auschwitz live burnings quoted by Hans - Müller, Tauber, Jankowski, Chasan and others?

Nothing at all, I would say.

Every eyewitness is a case in itself, and the credibility of each must be assessed individually.

Are there any indications against the credibility of the above mentioned witnesses that Smith can show us?

Chuck thinks it was rather typical for Germans/Nazis to bonfire babies alive. I think that is rather preposterous. It is about as likely as July snow in Scottsdale based on known experience.

What Smith considers "preposterous" or not is irrelevant in the face of existing evidence.

It may not have been typical for the Nazis to "bonfire babies alive" (Müller's deposition clearly points out that Moll was acting against orders), but it's neither as if Smith's beloved Nazis had been alien to such atrocities on other occasions.

Neither a Moloch myth nor a Soviet propaganda film, but the complaint of a high-ranking Nazi official:

Reich Commissar Hinrich Lohse forwarded Kube’s report with the following note:
“What is Katyn compared to this? […] To lock men, women and children into barns and to set fire to these, does not appear to be a suitable method of combating bands, even if it is desired to exterminate the population.”

I translated the above from Christian Gerlach, Kalkulierte Morde, pages 898 and following.

The context can be found in my post of Fri Aug 30, 2002 8:38 pm on the thread

Major Anti-partisan Operation in Belorussia
http://www.thirdreichforum.com/phpBB2/v ... 9414b8da0c

So much for the few statements in Smith's post that relate to the topic. The beaten rhetorical bullshit decorating them I don't care to address.

[Roberto]

Smith hopes to insulate his errors from proper criticism by staking claim to a subjective reality.

And Smith waits with baited-breath while would-be Inquisitor, Lord Chuck shows him the promised land of Error.

You have already been shown your error. You were in error concerning Hume's definition of "miracle" and therefore you attempted use of him to support ignoring testimonial evidence of Nazi atrocities. You were in error when you claimed his definition might have been a "constrained" reaction to religious dogma, and you were in error when you claimed he was outwardly not skeptical of religious miracles.

How may more do you need?

I said I was willing to agree to disagree. That is a problem for you as it is with most dogmatists.

The only dogmatists in this place are Smith and his ilk, who desperately cling to their articles of faith notwithstanding all evidence to the contrary.

Agreement to disagree requires arguments warranting respect on both sides of the debate.

As long as one side does nothing other than incessantly repeat its "Revisionist" BS, the other cannot reasonably see anything worth an agreement to disagree.

[Scott Smith]

Furthermore, it cannot be corroborated in a more objective manner than by the testimonial of fantasy-prone personalities like Dr. Blaha.

Blaha was considered unreliable by criminal justice authorities and historians because he changed his accounts too often, IIRC.

Blaha's depositions referred to Dachau, by the way, not to Auschwitz.

That's what I said. The original discussion was about Blaha's claims. Chuck used the argument that it was not unusual for Nazis to burn babies alive.

And what does Blaha's lack of reliability tell us about the reliability of the witnesses to the Auschwitz live burnings quoted by Hans - Müller, Tauber, Jankowski, Chasan and others?

Nothing at all, I would say.

It tells us a lot about the genre, I would say.

Every eyewitness is a case in itself, and the credibility of each must be assessed individually.

Yes but I have little confidence in Allied authorities to do that where Nazis are concerned. I would like to cross-examine all of these guys myself if I could.

Are there any indications against the credibility of the above mentioned witnesses that Smith can show us?

See above.

Chuck thinks it was rather typical for Germans/Nazis to bonfire babies alive. I think that is rather preposterous. It is about as likely as July snow in Scottsdale based on known experience.

What Smith considers "preposterous" or not is irrelevant in the face of existing evidence.

And Roberto determines what is credible evidence in an objective fashion?

It may not have been typical for the Nazis to "bonfire babies alive" (Müller's deposition clearly points out that Moll was acting against orders), but it's neither as if Smith's beloved Nazis had been alien to such atrocities on other occasions.

Isn't that a variation of the Falsus in Uno, Falsus in Omnibus argument that scares you so much? Or, in other words, the Nazis did bad things so we can expect stories about mad scientists and burning babies alive in bonfires and crematoria to be true, right? And this is not a "religious" response?

Neither a Moloch myth nor a Soviet propaganda film, but the complaint of a high-ranking Nazi official:

So locking people into a barn and then torching it (assuming that claim is true) is the same as throwing babies alive into the crematorium or onto bonfires?

So much for the few statements in Smith's post that relate to the topic. The beaten rhetorical bullshit decorating them I don't care to address.

Ah, Damage Control, the Sacrament of Victimology in action...

I said I was willing to agree to disagree. That is a problem for you [Chuck] as it is with most dogmatists.

The only dogmatists in this place are Smith and his ilk, who desperately cling to their articles of faith notwithstanding all evidence to the contrary.

Agreement to disagree requires arguments warranting respect on both sides of the debate.

As long as one side does nothing other than incessantly repeat its "Revisionist" BS, the other cannot reasonably see anything worth an agreement to disagree.

Thanks. You demonstrate my very point.

[Erik]

Roberto wrote:

The only dogmatists in this place are Smith and his ilk, who desperately cling to their articles of faith notwithstanding all evidence to the contrary.

Agreement to disagree requires arguments warranting respect on both sides of the debate.

As long as one side does nothing other than incessantly repeat its "Revisionist" BS, the other cannot reasonably see anything worth an agreement to disagree.

Compare Roberto to Hume:

“Of Scepticism with Regard to Reason”. (Treatise of Human Nature)

The sceptical and dogmatical reasons are of the same kind, though contrary in their operation and tendency; so that where the latter is strong, it has an enemy of equal force in the former to encounter; and as their forces were at first equal, they still continue so, as long as either of them subsists; nor does one of them lose any force in the contest, without taking as much from its antagonist. It is happy, therefore, that nature breaks the force of all sceptical arguments in time, and keeps them from having any considerable influence on the understanding. Were we to trust entirely to their self-destruction, that can never take place, until they have first subverted all conviction, and have totally destroyed human reason.

Now : who is a dogmatist? A skeptic?

The only dogmatists in this place are Smith and his ilk, who desperately cling to their articles of faith notwithstanding all evidence to the contrary.

(Roberto)

Unless that statement is BS, too, then Roberto must be a skeptic to some “articles of faith”.

It is happy, therefore, that nature breaks the force of all sceptical arguments in time, and keeps them from having any considerable influence on the understanding. Were we to trust entirely to their self-destruction, that can never take place, until they have first subverted all conviction, and have totally destroyed human reason.

(Hume)

What “nature” will break the force of Roberto’s sceptical arguments in time, and keep them from having any considerable influence on the understanding?

We (Smith and his ilk) cannot trust entirely to their self-destruction – which would have to wait until they have subverted all conviction – since by then they would have totally destroyed human reason.

Well, when – and if – Roberto has read this far, perhaps he will stop being a sceptic, and cling to some article of faith instead, in order to save human reason.

Who wants to be a loser?

That’s “nature”, isn’t it?

[Charles Bunch]

Smith hopes to insulate his errors from proper criticism by staking claim to a subjective reality.

And Smith waits with baited-breath while would-be Inquisitor, Lord Chuck shows him the promised land of Error.

You have already been shown your error. You were in error concerning Hume's definition of "miracle" and therefore you attempted use of him to support ignoring testimonial evidence of Nazi atrocities. You were in error when you claimed his definition might have been a "constrained" reaction to religious dogma, and you were in error when you claimed he was outwardly not skeptical of religious miracles.

How may more do you need?

I said I was willing to agree to disagree.

Of course you're willing to disagree, but so what? You were wrong.

That is a problem for you as it is with most dogmatists.

No, but it is an irrelevancy, and you are the dogmatist who ignores evidence which proves him wrong.

Am I wrong? Maybe.

That you are wrong has been demonstrated.

Are you wrong? Of course not!

On this point, exactly.