|
|
|
Rudolfo
Banned
124 Posts |
 Posted - 04/02/2010 : 05:10:22 [Permalink]
|
[But if you know all about scientific skepticism,.....]
I'd say a research engineer, i.e. a guy who works in the research dept. of an aerospace company, for example, is a 'scientist', but I included the fact that I'm an engineer in the interests of full disclosure. I could check the definition of scientist ... but I won't.
I know all about skepticism, and I know that the idea that any scientist would ever argue from consensus is ..... sad to say ... idiotic. Arguing from consensus is antithetical to science. It is anti-science. Scientists argue EXCLUSIVELY from facts, evidence, reason, and analysis. NEVER consensus.
The idea that a scientist would dismiss a criticism of global warming, say, on the basis of the 'consensus of experts', shows a total lack of understanding of how scientists think. Arguing from consensus is anti-science. It's Salem witch trial mentality.
The idea that 'extraordinary claims' require 'extraordinary proof' is total nonsense. It's an excuse to justify group think, to enable you the reject arguments out of hand. We even discussed this earlier and you agreed. And then ...... LOL !
ANYHOW ..... the question was asked ... who chose Bomba .... the 'Shoah' filmmankers chose him, and he is featured at the USHMM as a Treblinka witness, so they chose him.
NOW BACK TO THE TOPIC AT HAND ... ABRAHAM BOMBA .... see his testimony linked in the OP..... (oops wrong thread .... )
And, let's have a photo ... the children's zoo at Treblinka ... this photo was not featured in 'Shoah' or the USHMM ....
 |
| Edited by - Rudolfo on 04/02/2010 05:43:50 |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/02/2010 : 06:49:40 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Rudolfo
I know all about skepticism, and I know that the idea that any scientist would ever argue from consensus is ..... sad to say ... idiotic. Arguing from consensus is antithetical to science. It is anti-science. Scientists argue EXCLUSIVELY from facts, evidence, reason, and analysis. NEVER consensus. |
Nobody here is a scientist. For interested laypeople, the fact that there is a huge consensus among experts - experts who typically make a name for themselves by bucking consensus - is an indication of where the truth is. The existence of a consensus is itself evidence, and must be part of the analysis.| The idea that a scientist would dismiss a criticism of global warming, say, on the basis of the 'consensus of experts', shows a total lack of understanding of how scientists think. |
Scientists who aren't climate scientists often dismiss criticisms of global warming because of the consensus. They don't have the training, knowledge or time to do anything else.| Arguing from consensus is anti-science. |
It's not illogical or unreasonable, and it's not anti-skeptical. The existence of a consensus when there shouldn't be one is powerful evidence. The null hypothesis is not that there's a conspiracy, that's a separate hypothesis which requires its own evidence.| It's Salem witch trial mentality. |
Ha!| The idea that 'extraordinary claims' require 'extraordinary proof' is total nonsense. It's an excuse to justify group think, to enable you the reject arguments out of hand. |
But, you can't actually explain why.| And, let's have a photo ... the children's zoo at Treblinka ... this photo was not featured in 'Shoah' or the USHMM .... |
The only person I can find calling it a children's zoo is... you. The "official Holocaust narrative" is that it was a zoo at which SS could relax. Where is your evidence that it was a zoo for children? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Fripp
SFN Regular
USA
727 Posts |
Posted - 04/02/2010 : 06:52:23 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Rudolfo
The idea that 'extraordinary claims' require 'extraordinary proof' is total nonsense.
|
Again, this is just about the stupidest thing I've ever heard said here, and heard some pretty stupid things.
YES or NO - Does a claim require evidence?
YES or NO - The more outrageous the claim (I am a visiting space alien from Zeta Reticuli), the more incredible the evidence is required to verify that claim; I assume that if I showed you a starmap and said "I came from there", you wouldn't buy that and that you would need to see my spaceship in order to start believing me.
Don't weasel out of the questions above with claims of groupthink, false skepticism, etc. |
"What the hell is an Aluminum Falcon?"
"Oh, I'm sorry. I thought my Dark Lord of the Sith could protect a small thermal exhaust port that's only 2-meters wide! That thing wasn't even fully paid off yet! You have any idea what this is going to do to my credit?!?!"
"What? Oh, oh, 'just rebuild it'? Oh, real [bleep]ing original. And who's gonna give me a loan, jackhole? You? You got an ATM on that torso LiteBrite?" |
|
|
|
Rudolfo
Banned
124 Posts |
Posted - 04/02/2010 : 08:24:36 [Permalink]
|
[ Where is your evidence that it was a zoo for children?]
It is prima facie a zoo for children. Look at the whimsical architecture, look at the fence that is about 2 feet tall. Most of the people who visit zoos are families who have come for their children's amusement, and the zoo pictured is obviously primarily a children's zoo. |
| Edited by - Rudolfo on 04/02/2010 08:31:41 |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Fripp
SFN Regular
USA
727 Posts |
Posted - 04/02/2010 : 08:51:49 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Rudolfo
Look at the whimsical architecture, |
I see nothing that could be described as "whimsical"
| look at the fence that is about 2 feet tall. |
"About two feet tall"? Without any obvious references in the picture, it is impossible (except for the deluded) to determine its height. By my eyes and some assumptions drawn from the building and the tree right behind the gate, I would hazard that the fence is closer to three feet high. Please provide evidence that it is, in fact, two feet high, and it is that height is due to its focus towards children.
the zoo pictured is obviously primarily a children's zoo.
|
Poisoning the Well. There is nothing "obvious about it, and you claiming otherwise does not make it so.
No wonder you think that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" is nonsense. Frankly, this "evidence" you've presented is nothing short of pathetic.
These are all just minor quibbles on inconsequential matters, but you make wholly unfounded and wild assertions based on non-existent evidence. You then pile one unfounded, un-evidenced claim on top of another until you reach the completely illogical claim that there is NO evidence for the Holocaust.
You have yet to provide evidence that the children seen in that other photo were Jewish. Or explained exactly WHY the Nazis were rounding up Jews and putting them in camps. |
"What the hell is an Aluminum Falcon?"
"Oh, I'm sorry. I thought my Dark Lord of the Sith could protect a small thermal exhaust port that's only 2-meters wide! That thing wasn't even fully paid off yet! You have any idea what this is going to do to my credit?!?!"
"What? Oh, oh, 'just rebuild it'? Oh, real [bleep]ing original. And who's gonna give me a loan, jackhole? You? You got an ATM on that torso LiteBrite?" |
|
|
|
astropin
SFN Regular
USA
970 Posts |
Posted - 04/02/2010 : 09:53:19 [Permalink]
|
 |
I would rather face a cold reality than delude myself with comforting fantasies.
You are free to believe what you want to believe and I am free to ridicule you for it.
Atheism:
The result of an unbiased and rational search for the truth.
Infinitus est numerus stultorum |
|
|
|
podcat
Skeptic Friend
435 Posts |
Posted - 04/02/2010 : 09:53:19 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Rudolfo
[ Where is your evidence that it was a zoo for children?]
It is prima facie a zoo for children. Look at the whimsical architecture, look at the fence that is about 2 feet tall. Most of the people who visit zoos are families who have come for their children's amusement, and the zoo pictured is obviously primarily a children's zoo.
|
If we sent an e-mail to the site you took that photo from (Aktion Reinhard Camps (ARC)), would they tell us that is a primarily a children's zoo?
http://www.deathcamps.org/treblinka/zoo.html |
“In a modern...society, everybody has the absolute right to believe whatever they damn well please, but they don't have the same right to be taken seriously”.
-Barry Williams, co-founder, Australian Skeptics |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 04/02/2010 : 10:00:04 [Permalink]
|
Rudolfo:
t is prima facie a zoo for children. Look at the whimsical architecture, look at the fence that is about 2 feet tall. Most of the people who visit zoos are families who have come for their children's amusement, and the zoo pictured is obviously primarily a children's zoo. |
Here is your children's zoo.
Early 1943 the camp commandant ordered to build a zoo besides the Ukrainian barracks. Here the SS men relaxed from their bloody work.
The main building was a wooden cave for foxes, covered with birch branches. Wire netting prevented the animals from escape. A dovecot was built on top of the zoo. Birch benches, chairs and tables were placed in the centre of the zoo area. The whole site was fenced in with a low birch fence. Flowers rounded up the surrealistic location. |
Hat tip to podcat.
Ahhhhh. I see podcate is on it...
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 04/02/2010 : 10:12:24 [Permalink]
|
Rudolfo:
The idea that a scientist would dismiss a criticism of global warming, say, on the basis of the 'consensus of experts', shows a total lack of understanding of how scientists think. Arguing from consensus is anti-science. |
That's true. And a scientist working in an area where there is a consensus who finds evidence that the consensus might be wrong or subject to change is doing his job. Of course, there is a proccess for doing that, and it doesn't rely on hunches. The new evidence must be peer reviewed in a relevant scientific journal in good standing, and then survive the inevitable tests before it's accepted. But that's not what we are talking about here, and you are being purposefully obtuse.
Rudolfo:
The idea that 'extraordinary claims' require 'extraordinary proof' is total nonsense. |
Take that ridiculous assertion up with the whole skeptical community. To suggest that your evidence does not have to be equal to your claim for it to hold up is what's nonsense. For example, if you want to bring down evolution as a theory, you will have to produce stunning evidence against the theory, and not just hunches, if your going to succeed. You're rejection of this basic rule once again speaks volumes about what you know about skepticism. Or science for that matter. Yours is the mantra of every crank who thinks he has the goods.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Rudolfo
Banned
124 Posts |
Posted - 04/02/2010 : 10:17:16 [Permalink]
|
[If we sent an e-mail to the site you took that photo from (Aktion Reinhard Camps (ARC)), would they tell us that is a primarily a children's zoo?]
I have some suspicions about this site. First, the publish the photo of the children's zoo, which I don't find anywhere else. Remarkable. Why do that?
Then, they publish the photos of excavators along with a telegram from Otto Globocnik requesting them, with the ironic comment ....
"Who knows for what else he could have ordered these excavators."
when it is well known that there were sand and gravel quarries at Treblinka. LOL !
Maybe deathcamps.org is a covert revisionist site.
For more on Operation Reinhard see ....
http://www.codoh.info/incon/inconglobocnik.html |
| Edited by - Rudolfo on 04/02/2010 10:21:09 |
|
|
|
Rudolfo
Banned
124 Posts |
Posted - 04/02/2010 : 10:26:28 [Permalink]
|
[Take that ridiculous assertion up with the whole skeptical community.]
The skeptical community ? 
Fripp and filthy ? .... |
| Edited by - Rudolfo on 04/02/2010 10:30:44 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 04/02/2010 : 10:41:03 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Rudolfo
[Take that ridiculous assertion up with the whole skeptical community.]
The skeptical community ?
|
Yes indeed. And we do subscribe to certain principals of logic. Tools, really. That you dismiss them is convenient for you so I understand why you do it. One of these days, when I have the time, I'll break out the crank index and see where you fall on it.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Fripp
SFN Regular
USA
727 Posts |
Posted - 04/02/2010 : 11:14:36 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Rudolfo
| If we sent an e-mail to the site you took that photo from (Aktion Reinhard Camps (ARC)), would they tell us that is a primarily a children's zoo? |
I have some suspicions about this site.
|
Oh golly, really? Well, your suspicions are all I need. You've convinced me! It's gotta be a children's zoo!
On a serious note, I notice that instead of responding to specific questions, you chose to avoid them altogether and instead resorted to ridiculing the questioner. Ad hominem
These questions remain unanswered:
What are the "whimsical" designs in the photo?
Why are "whimsical" designs indicative of a zoo that is intended only for children's entertainment?
How do you know the fence is two feet tall?
Why would a two (or three) foot fence be evidence that this is a children's zoo?
How did you know the children in the first photo (another thread) were Jewish?
Why were the Nazi's putting Jews into concentration camps? |
"What the hell is an Aluminum Falcon?"
"Oh, I'm sorry. I thought my Dark Lord of the Sith could protect a small thermal exhaust port that's only 2-meters wide! That thing wasn't even fully paid off yet! You have any idea what this is going to do to my credit?!?!"
"What? Oh, oh, 'just rebuild it'? Oh, real [bleep]ing original. And who's gonna give me a loan, jackhole? You? You got an ATM on that torso LiteBrite?" |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/02/2010 : 11:30:09 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Rudolfo
First, the publish the photo of the children's zoo, which I don't find anywhere else. Remarkable. |
Yes, it is remarkable that you don't know how to use Google.| It is prima facie a zoo for children. |
"Prima facie" still doesn't mean "is evidence of," no matter how many times you use it that way. You might consider cracking a dictionary on that one, too.| Look at the whimsical architecture, look at the fence that is about 2 feet tall. Most of the people who visit zoos are families who have come for their children's amusement... |
Of course, that indicates nothing about why a zoo was built.| ...and the zoo pictured is obviously primarily a children's zoo. |
Shorter: most zoos are for kids, therefore that zoo is for kids. By the same reasoning, since most Holocaust revisionists are wannabe Nazis, Rudolfo must be a wannabe Nazi. Same logic, so the latter must be a valid conclusion.
Of course, it's also the same bad logic which led Rudolfo to the conclusion that because some pictures are of people who died of disease after the war, all pictures of piles of bodies are of people who died of disease after the war. Rudolfo must think that because some swans are black, then all swans are black.
Since you didn't know the term "confirmation bias," Rudolfo, I'll introduce you to the term "hasty generalization." It's a mistake that you make a lot. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
The holocaust conspiracy
