Malcolm Dunnachie Thompson wrote:
> A lot of this discussion seems to take the notion of "evidence" as
> realtively unproblematic. Thus, someone said the reason they believe the
> holocaust occurred is because there is so much evidence for its
> occurrence. Now my question is: how is it that one decides what counts as
> evidence? what appears as evidence to one person will not count for
> another. Neo-nazis do not see the vast archives of documentary material
> as "evidence". Why not? because of their political identification. Now, I
> *do* see them as evidence. Why? because of mine.
>
> People are not convinced of things because of evidence, and they are
> certainly not convinced of things through rational argument. This
> presupposes criteria of evidence as self-evident (snicker snicker). Thus
> the evidence for the holocaust counts as evidence for you and me not
> because it is "so overwhelming" - otherwise there would be no possibility
> of denying it (but some people obviously do) - but because *we are not
> Nazis*. Also, I beg to differ with the claim that holocaust denial *can
> never achieve mass acceptance because of the evidence*. This is
> dangerously naive. One can't rely on the "evidence" to make one's
> arguments for one. Simply because evidence does not an argument make.
> Now, the appropriate strategy in dealing with holocaust denial is not to
> seek recourse in historiographic criteria and hope and against hope that
> rational argument can prevent Naziism. The appropriate strategy is to
> kill Nazis.
>
> Thus, I am not arguing that people are willing to sacrifice rational
> thought and critical ability to politics. I am arguing, rather, that what
> counts as rational thought and critical ability follow from politics.
Two issues are of concern here. One is the degree to which political
investiture affects one's ability to consider what we call evidence of events in the
past. The other is the epistemic criteria by which one determines what qualifies as
evidence.
To stay with the example: clearly, Neo-Nazis disregard evidence for the
Holocaust's having occurred out of their profound hatred for Jews. (And we all know
that Neo-Nazi's hate Jews.) And Jews have their own version of the story to uphold, for
obvious reasons. (Am I presuming that the Holocaust actually hapened?)
But what about people who are not politically invested in the dispute? Cannot
they consider the evidence--the documents, photographs, films, personal accounts, other
physical evidence, and the character of the parties involved--and arrive at a *fair*
description of what happened?
Of course, the description of what happened that these disinterested persons may
arrive at would only be *fair*, not perfect. To descry all claims to historical truth
simply because doing history is a messy business is to expect too much from the world.
********************************************************
Nicholas Dronen
Carpe Ya-ya.
********************************************************
> A lot of this discussion seems to take the notion of "evidence" as
> realtively unproblematic. Thus, someone said the reason they believe the
> holocaust occurred is because there is so much evidence for its
> occurrence. Now my question is: how is it that one decides what counts as
> evidence? what appears as evidence to one person will not count for
> another. Neo-nazis do not see the vast archives of documentary material
> as "evidence". Why not? because of their political identification. Now, I
> *do* see them as evidence. Why? because of mine.
>
> People are not convinced of things because of evidence, and they are
> certainly not convinced of things through rational argument. This
> presupposes criteria of evidence as self-evident (snicker snicker). Thus
> the evidence for the holocaust counts as evidence for you and me not
> because it is "so overwhelming" - otherwise there would be no possibility
> of denying it (but some people obviously do) - but because *we are not
> Nazis*. Also, I beg to differ with the claim that holocaust denial *can
> never achieve mass acceptance because of the evidence*. This is
> dangerously naive. One can't rely on the "evidence" to make one's
> arguments for one. Simply because evidence does not an argument make.
> Now, the appropriate strategy in dealing with holocaust denial is not to
> seek recourse in historiographic criteria and hope and against hope that
> rational argument can prevent Naziism. The appropriate strategy is to
> kill Nazis.
>
> Thus, I am not arguing that people are willing to sacrifice rational
> thought and critical ability to politics. I am arguing, rather, that what
> counts as rational thought and critical ability follow from politics.
Two issues are of concern here. One is the degree to which political
investiture affects one's ability to consider what we call evidence of events in the
past. The other is the epistemic criteria by which one determines what qualifies as
evidence.
To stay with the example: clearly, Neo-Nazis disregard evidence for the
Holocaust's having occurred out of their profound hatred for Jews. (And we all know
that Neo-Nazi's hate Jews.) And Jews have their own version of the story to uphold, for
obvious reasons. (Am I presuming that the Holocaust actually hapened?)
But what about people who are not politically invested in the dispute? Cannot
they consider the evidence--the documents, photographs, films, personal accounts, other
physical evidence, and the character of the parties involved--and arrive at a *fair*
description of what happened?
Of course, the description of what happened that these disinterested persons may
arrive at would only be *fair*, not perfect. To descry all claims to historical truth
simply because doing history is a messy business is to expect too much from the world.
********************************************************
Nicholas Dronen
Carpe Ya-ya.
********************************************************