The following is a chapter from the book
Shifting the Burden of Proof: Declaring something as true unless it can be proven false.
AKA: appeal to ignorance, demanding negative proof, ad ignorantiam
- Why don’t you believe in angels? Can you prove they don’t exist? Why say you don’t believe in angels when you don’t have any evidence on your side?
- I’ve never seen any evidence that proves our planet hasn’t been visited by space aliens before, so I continue to believe.
- God told me last night that I’m the new king of the world. What do you mean you don’t believe me? Do you have any proof?
The burden of proof should always be with the person who makes the claim. The claim should only be accepted as true if it can be supported with sufficient evidence. This is not a matter of stuffy debate etiquette, but a product of logic and common sense. The American justice system offers a simple example through the concept of innocent until proven guilty.
If the burden of proof were switched, we would accept anything as truth until it can be disproven. If someone said pigs can fly, unicorns are real, and Donald Trump’s hair is an alien being that controls his mind, you would have to accept these beliefs as fact until we find proof of the contrary. Of course, proof of something that isn’t can be difficult to come by. Maybe pigs only fly when we’re not looking. The unicorns could be deep into unexplored terrain. The alien hair could be a perfect mimic. This is part of the reason why the person making the claim is responsible for providing evidence. It’s often difficult or even impossible to prove that something doesn’t exist or didn’t happen.
Burden of proof comes down to the same simple truth as other fallacies: If you want people to believe you, you need to give them a decent reason why. And if you can’t offer any evidence to back your claim, why are you even making it in the first place?
Anytime someone makes an adamant claim without evidence to back it up, they are essentially shifting the burden of proof. Consider this conversation between Ohio Governor John Kasich and oversized child Sean Hannity:
JOHN KASICH: Part of the problem was we got in the middle of a civil war because we thought Saddam had weapons of mass destruction—
SEAN HANNITY: I still think he did.
KASICH: Pardon?
HANNITY: I still think he did. I think he got them out in the lead up to the war. And I think he brought them to Syria.
KASICH: Well, you know, maybe he did, but the fact is—you know, look, the fact is that if—well you say he had them, I don't know. There's no evidence to say he had them.
Hannity makes a claim with no proof to support it. If we had discovered WMDs in Iraq, that would have been proof of their existence. Of course, we didn’t. Kasich cannot prove that Hannity’s claim is wrong, but he shouldn’t have to. Kasich’s lack of evidence to prove Hannity wrong matches Hannity’s lack of evidence to support his claim, so there is no reason to believe it in the first place. For more examples of baseless claims, read just about any tweet by Donald Trump.
Here’s another way to look at it. True and false are mutually exclusive, like a coin toss. If it lands on heads, we know it didn’t land on tails. If it’s tails, we know it isn’t heads. But if we don’t know if it landed on heads (maybe a friend tossed it but didn’t reveal the outcome) that doesn’t mean we assume it was tails. The absence of proof that the coin landed on heads is not proof that it landed on tails. Apologies to any millennial readers who only use PayPal and have never touched a coin in real life. Maybe a story will help.
A man purchases a plot of land. To make the land more valuable, he claims that it was the site of a Civil War battle. This is despite any evidence supporting such a claim. No records of any military orders pertaining to the battle. No newspaper articles about the conflict. No personal letters or journal entries from soldiers. When the man is challenged by critics who say no such battle ever occurred, he simply responds, “How would they know that? Were they there?”
This argument shifts the burden of proof. The landowner demands that others provide evidence the event never happened and for everyone to accept the claim unless such evidence is provided. Why would such evidence exist? Who would write an article about a battle not occurring? What artifacts could be uncovered from the land that prove no battle took place?
Aside from not being a sound logical argument, this claim would be absolutely disgraceful. It rewrites American history, belittles the tragedy of the Civil War, and uses the memory of those who sacrificed everything, all in the name of greed. Unfortunately, this is not a fictional example. The person who made this fallacious claim was the unfortunately not fictional Donald Trump.
Trump purchased the property, a golf club in Loudoun County, Virginia, in 2009. Among the many upgrades he made to the land is a historical marker with this inscription:
“The River of Blood”
Many great American soldiers, both of the North and South, died at this spot, “The Rapids”, on the Potomac River. The casualties were so great that the water would turn red and thus became known as “The River of Blood”.
It is my great honor to have preserved this important section of the Potomac River!
Trump doesn’t seem to know how tacky exclamation points look on a monument to fallen soldiers, but that’s not even the worst part of the plaque. Nor is the use of the word “preserved” for an area where Trump clear-cut hundreds of trees to make for a better view. The most outrageous part of this inscription is that the Civil War battle it refers to never took place. No battle happened there at all, let alone one with notably high casualties. Trump’s story was completely fabricated. Not contested, based on questionable documentation, or a topic of debate among historians—this story was entirely imagined.
Let’s go back to Trump’s quote from earlier: “How would they know that? Were they there?” These are the remarks Trump made after historians refuted his claim. By shifting the burden of proof, Trump demands for his lie to be accepted as truth, despite a complete lack of evidence.
Also notice that Trump avoids specifics. The more details you give, the easier it becomes to discredit. Which regiments were involved? Who were the field officers? What was the date of this terrible battle, or battles? This is all information you would normally find on historical markers.
If any of this information were given, historians would have something to confirm or deny. They could look at records and documents to confirm if those people actually existed and if they and their regiment were even in this area at the date of the supposed battle.
Let’s give Trump the benefit of the doubt and say that even without any reason to believe his claim, there exists a chance, an extremely unlikely and insignificant possibility as close to impossible without being impossible chance, that the events he describes did take place and there just happens to be no evidence of it. It’s just as possible that aliens from outer space once landed on this spot by the Potomac. It’s just as possible that this spot along the Potomac will be the future location of Christ’s second coming. Any random and baseless claim you make is just as likely. It could be true, but there is literally no reason for anyone to believe it for a second, let alone to accept it as solid fact.
Now it’s your turn to try it at home. Create your own historical markers and display them around your community. Using the Trump methodology, don’t worry about it being even remotely true. As long as you make the claim, others must believe it until it can be disproven. Just like Trump, be careful to avoid anything specific like names or dates. Vaguely assert that something happened at some time. Your sign can say anything you want, but here are some samples to get you started:
One day, at this location, Donald Trump spit on a homeless war vet.
It was on this very elevator that Donald Trump once kicked a puppy for growling at his hair.
Here is the place where Donald Trump once wet himself, just a little, while watching an obese man eat a kebab.
Remember to include in fine print at the bottom:
This statement is based on the same amount of evidence as Donald Trump’s claim that American soldiers died fighting in a Civil War battle on a golf club he owns.
Speaking of awful human beings, the next example comes from Texas Governor Greg Abbott.
Wait, no . . . too cheap.
Transition, take two;
For this next example, we move from the American Civil War to the Syrian Civil War. Between President Assad and ISIS, Syrians have good reason to fear for their lives. Over two hundred fifty thousand people had already lost their lives since the turmoil began in 2011, and about half of the country’s population was forced to leave their home. The United States and other countries have taken in refugees fleeing the violence of this war-torn nation and continue to do so. However, some U.S. politicians would like to see these efforts cease. Specifically, the fear-mongering opportunistic ones. In the wake of the November 2015 Paris attacks, many U.S. Governors used the fear of terrorism to argue against allowing Syrian refugees from being resettled in the U.S.
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott wrote a letter to President Obama explaining why he believes we should stop allowing Syrian refugees into the country:
Neither you nor any federal official can guarantee that Syrian refugees will not be part of any terroristic activity. As such, opening our door to them irresponsibly exposes our fellow Americans to unacceptable peril.
In the words of Will Ferrell’s “Mugato” character from Zoolander, “He’s absolutely right.” Obama cannot guarantee that any Syrian refugees will not be part of any terroristic activity. The fun part about Abbott’s statement is that you can replace Syrian refugees with any other group of people and it would be precisely as true. Mormons, cat-lovers, thespians, Texas Governors . . . Obama cannot guarantee that any of them will not be part of any terroristic activity.
Abbott shifts the burden of proof. No one can guarantee that anyone won’t become a terrorist. Putting aside the obvious racism in assuming Syrians are probably terrorists, Abbott’s comments are also misleading. They give the idea that we’re allowing any Syrian refugee to enter the country without first looking into who they are. Nothing could be further from the truth.
According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, “Of all the categories of persons entering the U.S., these refugees are the single most heavily screened and vetted.” Refugees must complete extensive interviews, reference checks, and biological screenings like iris scans. Of those who pass, only those deemed most vulnerable are recommended to be transferred overseas. Once referred to the U.S., another level of intense scrutiny begins with nine government agencies working together. The whole process can take two years. About half of those accepted are children, and a quarter are over sixty years old. Only about 2% are unmarried men of “combat age.”
This is the perfect proving ground for shifting the burden of proof. Despite putting Syrian refugees through the highest level of screening any person traveling to the U.S. encounters, it’s still impossible to prove they won’t become terrorists . . . or shopkeepers, lawyers, or circus clowns. We can uncover evidence that someone is a terrorist or has had suspicious ties, but what evidence could we find that would prove someone will never commit an act of terror?
Despite the many politicians who supported Abbott and his fallacious argument, there were others like Delaware Gov. Jack Markell who chose not to prey on his constituent’s fear:
It is unfortunate that anyone would use the tragic events in Paris to send a message that we do not understand the plight of these refugees, ignoring the fact that the people we are talking about are fleeing the perpetrators of terror.
If you enjoyed this chapter, get the full book here!
