One gaping issue I see with your statements is they suggest a majority
opinion is of higher quality than a minority opinion. I do not agree with
majority over minority (and I suspect many do not). The rest of your
arguments I agree with. In this circumstance, I believe the majority to
be correct, the holocost was bad and did happen.
To determine if Leuchter is "evil", information about his credentials are
crucial. Also, his report will have to be compared with another expert to
determine if the data collection and fact findings were faulty. Then to
determine if his hypothesis show fault. If fault is found in the report,
then the Leuchter's credentials come into play, determining if he was
acting honestly or fabricating his hypothesis. If he did not poses the
proper skills, then he may have just mistakes. Thus low quality for doing
the job he was now qualified for, but not necessarily evil. If he was
acting dishonestly and fabricated data or hypothesis that could not be
founded, then very low quality and something that gives to labeling
"evil".
Determining Leuchter's quality and morality leads to the analysis of the
Court throwing out the case. If Leuchter's report was fabricated, then
the Court was moral to discount the report. If his report is valid, then
the Court was not acting morally.
> How do MoQ principles prevent one from ^turning his mind^s eye away from
> reality to the ^truth^ one would prefer to see?^
the MoQ principles point to questioning static over dynamic. Thus, the
Court did well to request a report on the holocost. If they question the
report do to a static believe that evil was done and the report questions
that, then requests another report and have another expert evaluate
Leuchter's report. But do not throw out the report for no reason. As for
Leuchter, he should go through the data he collects from other
perspectives than his own personal. This is not easy, but it is
synonymous to standing on a chair to view a room from another perspective.
When done, you find many things take on new importance and show hidden
qualities or faults.
The last question, Is Leuchter a metaphor for us all? I think yes. This
is a reoccuring theme with humans and the MoQ is one of many paths to
changing this behavior
these are only my opinions and i am far from an authority :)
On Thu, 30 Dec 1999 Jackbrn1o@aol.com wrote:
> Platt -
> I would like tackle the Leuchter case on two levels. First, on the
> intellectual. Fred is stating an intellectual opinion, or hypothesis if you
> prefer, about the holocost. His views are supported by his background and
> education. First, what are his credentials? Has he studied anthropology,
> history, engineering (i.e., the mechanics of gas chambers, etc)? I think we
> need this information in order to assess the credibility of his claim. I
> mean, anyone can say anything they want about the holocost. Just because he
> went to Auschwitz and has some practical experience with death chambers,
> etc.; doesn't mean his claims are worthwhile. And second, we must consider
> the witnesses to history. The thousands of people who are still alive and
> tell the story of the horrors that took place. I go out to breakfast once a
> week with a woman who actually lived through imprisonment in a Nazi
> concentration camp. She's told me some horriffic stories, including the loss
> of her father at the Nazis' hands. She has suffered psycologically all of
> her life because of that experience. I submit that Mr. Leuchter can go to
> all the concentration camp site's he wants too. How does his theory compare
> to the many survivors? It begs the question (and I don't have a good
> answer): how does intellectual hypothesis compare against a real social
> experience in terms of "the truth?" I can tell you my opinions on the
> matter... this little old grandmotherly woman has memories of horrors that I
> can't even imagine - and I've tried. My understanding of Pirsig's idea of
> quality is a continuium - from low to high. I might argue that someone
> making an intellectual statement about a period of history has low to high
> quality depending on their credentials, experience, etc. I'm skeptical of
> Mr. Leuchter's. However, I believe this woman's experiences have high
> quality in that she's actually lived through the time that Mr. Leucter is
> merely hypothesizing about. To illustrate, I can read books about war and
> come up with theories about what's it's like. I doubt this would compare
> with talking with a veteran about their real-life experience. So there it
> is. I guess I'll throw it out there: Mr. Leuchter's intellectual theories
> about "the truth" of the holocost are of low quality when contrasted against
> the physical evicence (i.e., eye-wittnesses, survivors, photographs, etc) -
> or social experience - about "the truth." Let me know wht you think.
>
> Jack
>
>
> MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
> MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
>
Send replies to:
- Brian Ventura
- water@bighead.com
- World's Greatest Speler
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:17 BST