Holocaustianity: a post-normal science?

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
Sylvie
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2010 4:01 pm

Holocaustianity: a post-normal science?

Postby Sylvie » 8 years 11 months ago (Sun Oct 17, 2010 9:17 am)

One of the recurrent themes in this forum is that in the case of exterminationist 'holocaust' research, normal scientific standards are not applied. In this context, the famous Wiesel-Rebbe dialog is often cited, according to which
some things are true that never happened and some happened, but are not true.


Being a newcomer, I wonder whether the link has already been made by revisionists between the truth finding techniques of Holocaust research and the 'consensus based' anti-Popper paradigm known as post-normal science (PNS), introduced by Funtowicz and Ravetz during the 1990s, and supported by Frankfurt school acolytes like Habermas, where scientific goals should be controlled by political or social actors.

It basically states that classical scientific truth finding through experimental verification/falsification of theses ("normal science") must in certain cases be replaced/complemented by consensus-oriented global peer review processes ("post-normal science").

Thus theses are not verified by observing reality, but accepted or discarded by a set of "mainstream experts" committed to humanity.

Apart from the "Holocaust", this concept of science can currently be seen at work in many health related dogmas and, of course, in the Man Made Global Warming discussions.

Being more recent than the "Holocaust" historiography, post-normal science philosophy may even have been triggered by the success of the narrative.

The Warden
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 436
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 12:28 pm
Location: 'Murica!

Re: Holocaustianity: a post-normal science?

Postby The Warden » 8 years 10 months ago (Thu Oct 21, 2010 10:16 pm)

PNS is not necessarily a science at all. It's semantics for variables.

In the case of the Holocaust, Believers seem to adopt this style by making conclusions and connections that simply can't be made based on the available evidence, but Revisionists tend to rely on facts in evidence and draw conclusions solely on them. So I suppose it depends on which side of the aisle you stand on whether or not PNS applies to the Holocaust.
Why the Holocaust Industry exists:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2A81P6YGw_c

Sylvie
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2010 4:01 pm

Re: Holocaustianity: a post-normal science?

Postby Sylvie » 8 years 10 months ago (Fri Oct 22, 2010 10:43 am)

The Warden wrote:it depends on which side of the aisle you stand on whether or not PNS applies to the Holocaust

OK, but the reference to Post-Normal Science (PNS) was not meant as an academic exercise.

When talking about the "Holocaust", even with fairly open-minded people, it rarely comes to a discussion of cyanide chemistry in wet mortar. Normally it gets stuck at the following point:
How can so many experts and nearly all governments, United Nations etc. agree on "Holocaust" history, when - as you say - there is no forensic evidence?

Claiming the revisionists are scientific, while the exterminationists are a bunch of hoaxers, will not convince many. You must at least show that ignoring forensic facts is not special to the "Holocaust" narrative. However, historical precedents go back to the middle ages and recent deceptions of that kind are on a much smaller scale.

But revisionists can point to a very hot topic: The current Man Made Global Warming (MMGW) discussion.

Not that they should enter that fray technically, but they can draw the evident parallels to the consensus techniques of MMGW: how, massively, Universities, media, all governments and UN bodies come to support of one scientifically fragile thesis (man made CO2), successfully suppressing other evidence and marginalizing critical voices. Even using outright fraud (Climagate), all because of some foggy supposed humanitarian benefit.

This is where PNS comes in, since it is more or less accepted that Man Made Global Warming is post-normal science (see, for example, http://buythetruth.wordpress.com/2009/1 ... f-science/ or google the terms).

Resuming:
Although PNS is not for "Holocaust" talk with Joe Sixpack, it can help to shake the inevitable argument of most interlocutors: Do you claim that all those peer-reviewed "Holocaust" investigations and erudite professors aren't scientific?

The short answer is: Maybe they are, but their science paradigm is not the normal one. You can study it in the Global Warming discussion.

The Warden
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 436
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 12:28 pm
Location: 'Murica!

Re: Holocaustianity: a post-normal science?

Postby The Warden » 8 years 10 months ago (Mon Oct 25, 2010 4:18 pm)

I don't know where you have your discussions, but mine almost always involve the details which the other person never seems to have considered or even heard. It's the very details that tear down the claims of the Zionists.

Global warming, 9/11, and all the other major conspiracies don't involve one specific group being the victims. The Holocaust is the Zionist foundation of funding and propaganda which created and maintains the victim industry. It's cyclical. The victimization creates the funding, the funding creates the industry, the industry creates the victimization, and so on.

Revisionists, as they pertain to the Holocaust, rely on the information known. They don't make connections based on assumptions or because it suits their argument.
Grouping the Holocaust into other conspiracy theories is unwarranted since the facts known don't support the claims. Conspiracy theories are just that... theories.
The revision of the Holocaust is far from theory, although the idea that it's a hoax may be.
It's exactly what it should be: Historical fact.
Why the Holocaust Industry exists:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2A81P6YGw_c

Ilikerealhistory
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 145
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:50 pm

Re: Holocaustianity: a post-normal science?

Postby Ilikerealhistory » 8 years 10 months ago (Wed Oct 27, 2010 11:21 am)

The science behind the Holocaust(R) is based on the idea that anything that supports it can't be wrong.

Most of the Holocaust(R) science negates conservation of energy, conservation of mass, and common sense. The more bizarre, ridiculous, and unbelievable the claim, the more real it becomes. Anne Frank using a time machine to get a ballpoint pen to write her diary is one unbelievable claim, and having jews like Wiesel, Wiesenthal, and the Franks choosing to go back to Germany to get exterminated in non-existent gas chambers instead of staying in the other camps and being liberated by the Soviets is another bizarre claim.

Thesaint
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 201
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 4:34 pm
Location: England

Re: Holocaustianity: a post-normal science?

Postby Thesaint » 8 years 10 months ago (Fri Oct 29, 2010 10:35 pm)

This is one just begging for some tender loving care from our good old trusted friend wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-normal_science

"Post-Normal Science is a concept developed by Silvio Funtowicz and Jerome Ravetz, attempting to characterise a methodology of inquiry that is appropriate for cases where "facts are uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high and decisions urgent" (Funtowicz and Ravetz, 1991). It is primarily applied in the context of long-term issues where there is less available information than is desired by stakeholders.[citation needed]"

Nothing obviously freaky or untoward on ultra casual inspection eh?

"the idea has gained some publicity in recent times, appearing prominently in an article published in The Guardian in March 2007 [1]. Some[citation needed] argue that there seems to be little to distinguish post-normal science from the skewed cargo cult science described by Richard Feynman in 1974."

Ha,only "some"?

What a hoot,and no mention of Frankfurt school or parallels to the discredited AGW "consensus" of course.

Thanks for the find Sylvie,I did not know such brazen and unabashed hogwashery existed outside the chutzpah that is the holohoax,and yes I agree that it could be a useful arrow in the quiver to soften up the militantly gullible.
"We didn't call survivors," says Lipstadt, "because first of all we didn't want to subject them to cross-examination by this guy. He (Irving) would have destroyed them."
- Jerusalem Post 6/16/00


Return to “'Holocaust' Debate / Controversies / Comments / News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 14 guests