Deceit & Misrepresentation The "Science" of Denial, Writer: Mike Stein
In recent years, Holocaust deniers have turned to
"scientific" arguments to
"prove" that the Nazi regime could not have
used gas chambers to carry out an
extermination program against Jews and
Gypsies. The "Leuchter and
Rudolf reports" purported to demonstrate that there was not enough cyanide residue in the Auschwitz gas chambers to be consistent with mass gassing.
Friedrich Paul Berg, in his
paper "The Diesel Gas Chambers: Myth
Within a Myth," claims to show that it would be improbable
at
best and nearly impossible at worst to
use diesel engine exhaust to kill people
in the manner and time described by
eyewitnesses to the gas chambers at
Belzec and
Treblinka. Both papers cite experiments, laboratory analyses, chemical compositions, etc. just like any other objective scientific paper - or so the authors would like us to believe.
The danger of this new denier approach is that few people have the technical background to analyze the papers and understand their fundamental flaws. Too
many people glance at the arguments, see "science," and immediately their
eyes glaze over. They figure that since it's "scientific," there must be
something to it. Thus Holocaust denial gains scientific credibility.
Unfortunately, there's a difference between denier "science" and
true science. The fundamental principle of true science is this: any theory
must take into account any relevant observable facts. That is, the theory
must fit the facts; a true scientist never denies facts simply because they don't fit
the theory. The way an honest scientist works is to make observations
first, and only then come up with a theory which explains what is seen.
If at any time the facts contradict the theory, the theory is discarded as false.
A new one must be formed.
The Holocaust deniers reverse this process. First they decide what they
want the "facts" to be, contrary to all eyewitness testimony and
documentary and physical evidence. They come up with theories to "prove" that the "true" facts must be the way they want them to be.
Therefore all documents are forgeries or mean something other than what they
clearly seem to mean, and eyewitnesses to events which contradict their
theory must be lying, mistaken, crazy, or victims of some form of coercion which
caused themto give false testimony.
There are other ways in which honest science can be distinguished from
quackery. Real scientists are cautious. They look at possible alternative explanations. They look for possible sources of error. They explain any limitations or problems they know about. They shy away from making assumptions, and if they do have to make
them, they explain and justify them openly. All conclusions are based
on facts plus properly established theories, not speculation and unproven assumptions.
When one examines denier "science," one finds that every
one of these rules are violated. Fred Leuchter simply
assumed
that it would have taken just as much
cyanide
to kill people as it took to kill lice. That's false; lice take much more cyanide to kill and
they need to be exposed to it for a lot longer. He also seems to have assumed that gassings took place much more often than they really did, apparently taking the abnormal conditions at the peak of the Hungarian deportations as
being typical of the entire time at
Birkenau.
Leuchter
also assumed that since the delousing chambers have blue stains (apparently from cyanide compounds such as
prussian blue), the gas chambers would have had
the same staining. In fact, the formation of prussian
blue from exposure to
cyanide is not well understood. The rate of its formation, if it is formed at all, may vary
considerably under different circumstances.
Friedrich Berg argued that it is very difficult to make diesel engines generate enough carbon monoxide to kill within half an hour or so, as reported by the
witnesses at
Treblinka. Actually, he is right - the primary cause of death was probably asphyxiation (i.e., simple lack of oxygen). However, Berg violated all the rules. First, he failed to deal with explicit
eyewitness testimony that the victims suffocated to death. Second, he didn't look very closely at other ways in which diesel exhaust could kill
people under the circumstances reported at Treblinka. He completely glossed over the question of whether the combined effects of low oxygen, high carbon dioxide, moderate
carbon monoxide, high levels of oxides of nitrogen, and overcrowding in a very small
chamber can kill even though perhaps each individual effect could not.
There's a story, perhaps apocryphal, that someone using aerodynamic theory once
"proved" that bumblebees cannot fly. However, the bumblebees, unimpressed by this triumph of science, refused to walk from flower to flower and continued flying just as before.
The Holocaust deniers' "scientists" are in the same
position: they attempt to prove that facts are not facts. In the most real sense, the
"science" employed in the service of Holocaust denial is, in truth, the denial of every principle of the scientific method - indeed, the denial of science itself.
[Index ]
Home ·
Site Map ·
What's New? ·
Search
Nizkor
© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012
This site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and
to combat hatred.
Any statements or excerpts found on this site are for educational purposes only.
As part of these educational purposes, Nizkor may
include on this website materials, such as excerpts from the writings of racists and antisemites. Far from approving these writings, Nizkor condemns them and
provides them so that its readers can learn the nature and extent of hate and antisemitic discourse. Nizkor urges the readers of these pages to condemn racist
and hate speech in all of its forms and manifestations.
The Techniques of Holocaust Denial
the Denial of Science