Dachau report

[Hektor]

What the allies (Their sykwar and propaganda units plus journalists they briefed and brought in) did do was documenting the results of their own 'strategic bombing' and month of air superiority they had over Germany. That brought over mayhem and starvation for weaks and month and subsequently you will get a lot of starved, dead and sick people. This is actually pretty obviously the case, if one uses ones cognitive abilities for a while. But the later is actually where your run-of-the-mill Holocaust believers fails completely. It's intellectual laziness as well as lack of cognitive ability that prevents them to think about this. Albeit not in all the cases in some cases they should have the intellectual capacity to process the information and come to the conclusion I sketched above. But they won't. They stick to the narrative they once 'learned' and are conditioned to believe. And then they try to use their cognitive abilities to justify their beliefs and attack critique of it. This is willful ignorance in action.

Exactly as Hitler described these type of people.

This attitude isn't limited to the Holocaust. You will get this with several other utterances of 'science' as well. That's if it is 'paradigmatic' and when other issues are at stake for them.

In a group text on the topic of Covid a relative insisted that the unvaxxed are killing people because they are the sole group spreading the virus. She said that outright even though I openly stated in the text I was not vaxxed. She boldy proclaimed it was the science.
Months later she invited me to a family party. I reminded her I wasn't vaxxed and I could be a danger to the kids and others. Without skipping a beat she said vaccine status isn't a factor in spreading the virus. That's the science she said. They're only gambling with their own health.
On both occassions she stated with confidence and an in instructive manner that she knows what the science is.

"Science says". There is folks that think 'science' is something like an oracle. If the priests of it say something they take it as some truth as if it has been revealed by Gods. It's an appeal to authority (and actually quite anti-scientific to do). The covid-scam played enormous on this phenomenon.

So if the 'experts' say something, especially those they know, people are prone to believe it. Even if it sounds rather obnoxious. But if it looks like an apparent majority saying this (consensus) this has power and people think it must be true.

A birds eye view on reality demonstrates that the COVID-story was nonsense. And that's why we don't hear about it anymore. Also not about people having vaxxine-damages now. It would disturb to much and put many powerful people into a bad light.

There were already a wide-spread believe in 'viruses'. And the majority of those in medical fields believe in them. So a 'new virus' isn't that odd too most people. There is a minority that disputes 'virus-theory'. But they won't get the show, as they are outsiders. If something is said assertively over and over again, it gets the show and it will find a large number of believers. People believe this without knowing or understanding the arguments.

[cold beer]

And for the adherents it doesn't matter what the qualifications are of the experts that challenge the establishment health agencies' policies.

[Hektor]

And for the adherents it doesn't matter what the qualifications are of the experts that challenge the establishment health agencies' policies.

Credentialism is idiotic anyway. It assumes that by having a qualification, reputation and credentials that what one says somehow becomes magically meaningful. This is however a logical fallacy. What counts isn't WHO said something, but whether that statement followed logically from all relevant facts. I realize that this isn't how most people think, since they are intellectually lazy. They think someone with a title will be 'the truth', especially when in consensus with others that have titles as well... And that a layman can not 'speak the truth', because no university has given him a title.

So it's an argument from assumed authority. Appeals to authority are logical fallacies. Now authority has some meaning in organizations and decision making processes. But they can be a problem in discovery processes. This is often not understood, since the reasons for this are entirely abstract. And not accessible by most people.

[cold beer]

And for the adherents it doesn't matter what the qualifications are of the experts that challenge the establishment health agencies' policies.

Credentialism is idiotic anyway. It assumes that by having a qualification, reputation and credentials that what one says somehow becomes magically meaningful. This is however a logical fallacy. What counts isn't WHO said something, but whether that statement followed logically from all relevant facts. I realize that this isn't how most people think, since they are intellectually lazy. They think someone with a title will be 'the truth', especially when in consensus with others that have titles as well... And that a layman can not 'speak the truth', because no university has given him a title.

So it's an argument from assumed authority. Appeals to authority are logical fallacies. Now authority has some meaning in organizations and decision making processes. But they can be a problem in discovery processes. This is often not understood, since the reasons for this are entirely abstract. And not accessible by most people.

I agree, just because someone has credentials doesn't mean they should be trusted. What I was driving at is that these type of people will readily adopt claims made by random personalities hosting 'news' programs but also vehemently dismiss out of hand dessenting opinions from highly qualified individuals in the field.

[Hektor]

...
I agree, just because someone has credentials doesn't mean they should be trusted. What I was driving at is that these type of people will readily adopt claims made by random personalities hosting 'news' programs but also vehemently dismiss out of hand dessenting opinions from highly qualified individuals in the field.

Oh, they cite credentials as they like to. It depends on the bias there.
Is the Prof confirming a view? Good, very intelligent, excellent, witty professor there.
Is the Prof opposing views? Incompetent, Irrelevant, ivory tower academic with ulterior motives.
People even don't notice this, anymore.

Depends on the subject of course. If they aren't emotionally invested they trust an expert, when they feel challenged, but if they can they'd look even at the evidence there. This challenges, when they are emotionally invested especially, when it is a cause politique. In 2019 nobody would have been worried about 'covid denial'. In 2021 you'd hear that they had an aunt that died from covid. "Well doctor told me so". I know a virologist that says differently? "He's not qualified!" They aren't able or willing to understand what the arguments are or what methodologically sound proof is.


Credentials are useful, when you got to employ someone and you have no idea about the details of the job. When somebody is suspicious with what 'the experts' tell, this may however counted against them. And well, in some cases it really does. That's when the paradigm is in dispute and you cite an expert that was trained under that paradigm. Well, ultimately you can't use 'the expert' as an argument at all. It's always an appeal to authority, even when the qualifications are relevant. The conclusions have to follow from the facts logically. 2+3=5 ... You have a 2, you have a 3 that's 5 if added. No matter what a phD in mathematics tells you.