Techniques used by politically motivated revisionists
It is sometimes hard for a non-historian to distinguish between a book published by a historian doing peer-reviewed academic work, and a bestselling "amateur writer of history". For example, until David Irving lost his British libel suit against Deborah Lipstadt and was found to be a "falsifier of history", the general public did not realize that his books were outside the canon of acceptable academic histories.
The distinction rests on the techniques used to write such histories. Accuracy and revision are central to historical scholarship. As in any scientific discipline, historians' papers are submitted to peer review. Instead of submitting their work to the challenges of peer review, revisionists rewrite history to support an agenda, often political, using any number of techniques and logical fallacies to obtain their results. Because of this, they are considered by the historian community to be writing flawed History. Some of their most common rhetorical and other techniques include the following:
* Conspiracy theories
* The selective use of facts
* The denial or derision of known facts
* Argument from ignorance (hence the historian community's emphasis on the importance of historical memory and historical studies)
* The assumption of unproven facts
* The fabrication of facts
* The obfuscation of facts
* Claims of "counter-genocide", leading to a confusion between victims and executioners (for example, the Bombing of Dresden in World War II has been said by Holocaust deniers to be a "counter-genocide", thus transforming the German people into victims and henceforth exempting them from any kind of moral responsibility; the term has also been used concerning the Rwandan genocide and the Armenian Genocide)
* Fallacy of equivocation
* Appeal to consequences
* Irrelevant conclusions
* Burden of proof (due to the complex nature of what can be considered a historical "proof" - which differs from a logical proof - revisionists sometime ask historians to further prove an event which has been reasonably proved by historic standards, hence accepted as a fact by the historian community)
* Appeal to fear
* Appeal to spite
* Association fallacy
* Hasty generalization
* The use of attractive or neutral euphemisms to disguise unpleasant facts concerning their own positions
* The use of unpleasant euphemisms to describe opposing facts
* The two wrongs make a right fallacy
* Wishful thinking
* Constant attack against those disputing their views (Ad hominem) (close to slander and libel)
* Meaningless statements
* Reversal of blame (example: accusing Jews of provoking the Holocaust, or Armenians the genocide of 1915)
Lähde:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical ... gationism)
Jokainen laskekoon itse kuinka monta näistä kikoista Tylsimys on jo käyttänyt ja vieläkö jokin puuttuu.