Conspiracy Theories and the Burden of Proof

Recently, media personality and former licensed psychologist Dr. Phil (Phillip Calvin McGraw) propounded a conspiracy theory about Chinese immigrants:

“If they’re working in farming, if they’re working in industry, I promise you they are expected to do certain things. Are they spying? Are they sending seeds back from farming to China? Are they getting plans from industries they’re working on?”

Dr. Phil was off track. The person who wants to challenge existing policies or beliefs carries the burden of proof. Critical thinking fails when public figures, or the public at large, ignores that long-tested standard of argumentation. When reason collapses, so does the republican system of government. In 2024, our leaders face a constant battle to disprove bizarre conspiracy theories—when there is no reason to believe the conspiracy theory to start with. And questions are not proof! 

Notice that Dr. Phil only asked questions. He proved nothing. That is how conspiracy theories hatch from their rotten eggs. Questions and conjectures never prove anything. Never have, never will. They’re just questions. If you make a point, prove it! Burden of proof is the most basic principle of dialectic, without which critical thinking falls to pieces.

Presumption

The burden of proof must overcome presumption. When we presume that existing policies and beliefs are correct, that doesn’t mean that they are. It only means that to expect the present system to defend itself against every wild accusation leads to chaos. Society would collapse in confusion. Analagously, in a United States law court, the court presumes that the defendant is innocent. That doesn’t mean that there is any evidence that the defendant is innocent! It just means that to draw random people into court and require them to prove that they never committed this or that crime would surely cause injustice. Can you, dear reader, prove with evidence that you were not the masked bandit who robbed a liquor store on January 8, 2013, at 7:50 PM? Probably not. However, fortunately for all of us, the court presumes that you are innocent.

Likewise, we presume that only living people cast ballots. We presume that the people who count election ballots under supervision, following the provisions of law, will count them accurately. Does that mean that the ballots are absolutely accurate? Of course not. Instead, it means that people who challenge the ballots have the burden of proof. Let’s turn to that key idea.


Burden of Proof

In Elements of Rhetoric, Bishop Richard Whately showed us how to adapt the idea of burden of proof from common law courts.

In public policy, burden of proof has two contexts. First, anyone who challenges existing policies and beliefs has the burden to prove that those policies and beliefs are wrong. When, and only when, appropriate and solid evidence has been produced, yes, someone needs to defend the present policies and beliefs. The second is that a person who makes a factual claim has the burden to prove it. You can’t just say, “I think that the Mafia killed John Kennedy, and you need to prove that I am wrong.” That unwisely shifts the burden of proof. Likewise, you can’t just ask, “are the migrants actually Chinese spies?” Questions prove nothing.

So, did dead people vote in 2020? Good question, what is the proof? Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani commented, after Donald Trump lost in Michigan in 2020: “we’re going to be looking at dead persons’ ballots, which may actually be very, very substantial.”

Does that prove anything? No, of course not. It’s random speculation, akin to a question. Giuliani did not say that he could prove that dead people voted. He said that he was going to look at it. He also said that it “may” be substantial. In other words, he tried to reverse the burden of proof, when he, in fact, had no proof to offer. Questions and conjectures prove nothing. Not ever.

In any case, when FactCheck.org asked the Trump campaign to prove that dead people voted, they revealed only one case of a single dead person who voted (for Trump!)

Indeed, FactCheck.org was generous. After all, Giuliani had never accepted his burden of proof, and there was, under the rules of dialectic, no need whatsoever even to respond to his question. A sufficient response would be to say, “prove it!” If someone says that mail-in ballots were forged and that the proof is coming soon,” the first response is to say, “you have not fulfilled your burden of proof. I’ll wait until you show evidence, and then I’ll respond.”

Fact-checking organizations like PolitiFact.org and FactCheck.org perform a noble, thankless service and I wish people would pay more attention to them. Unfortunately, however, fact-checkers by their very nature accept the conspiracy theorists’ reversal of presumption. It is not the fact checkers job to prove that conspiracy theories are wrong. It is the conspiracy theorists’ job to prove their claims. If we fact-check an unproven claim, sometimes all we accomplish is to reset the debate on the ground that liars and scoundrels have chosen for themselves. Actually, all a fact checker should need to say is, “Dr. Phil asked whether Chinese spies are crossing the border, but he provided no evidence that they are.” Or, “Donald Trump claims that there was a ballot dump in Pennsylvania, but he never proved it.” Wait for the burden of proof; if the proof never comes, then, well, case closed. And insist that the case is closed. Poof.


Conspiracy Theories

People do ask many questions these days. Are there questions about the 2020 election? Were mail-in ballots cast fraudulently? Did dead people vote? Are immigrants crossing the southern border to spy for China? Or, going back, can Barack Obama prove that he was born in the United States?

As Professor David Zarefsky pointed out in 1993, conspiracy theories are as old as American politics itself. Conspiracy theorists (like Rudy Giuliani or Dr. Phil) often claim that their opponents have secret agendas. Can conspiracy theorists prove their conspiracies? Usually not! Conspiracies are secret! Still, without evidence, a conspiracy theory is just wild speculation.

Earlier Post: Speeches about Conspiracies: How Can We Tell Whether a Conspiracy Is Real?

Indeed, Zarefsky points out that conspiracy theorists throughout history routinely try to shift the burden of proof. They want us to believe things that they cannot prove. That road leads to madness.

Conclusion

Some conspiracy theories turn out to be true; most do not. The difference is evidence. Sadly, conspiracy theorists succeed when the public, failing to recognize the obligation to prove a point, accepts dubious, unproven claims. Critical thinking is absent. That is why, to have a healthy republic, listeners must grasp how to evaluate the different disputes that people contend. 

Burden of proof and presumption are not factual claims. They are part of the procedure of dialogue and debate that help us think critically. If we ignore the rules of debate, we mire ourselves in a swamp of confusion and disorder. So, a person who debates public policy must offer evidence.

Or, follow this ancient idea: an argument has only two parts—state your case and prove it. Everything else is decoration.

Earlier Post: Critical Thinking on the Cheap

___________________

Richard Whately

Research Note:

Whately explains burden of proof in his wonderful 1828 book, Elements of Rhetoric. Any present-day argumentation and debate textbook will give a brief, easy to understand explanation. For example, Austin Freeley’s superb book is widely assigned in college debate courses.


Personal Note:

There is nothing wrong with saying that you do not know something. Are Chinese spies crossing the border? I do not know. I will await evidence.

By the way, do schools do an adequate job of teaching critical thinking? I'm just asking a question, not making a claim--what do you think? 

by William D. Harpine

Copyright © 2024, William D Harpine

Image of Richard Whately, public domain in the United States, published before 1928, via Wikimedia

Can Proof Ever Be Absolute? Tucker Carlson and the Conservative Fantasy of Perfect Vaccines

Coronavirus, CDC Image

What I hear almost constantly from conservatives’ anti-vaccine rhetoric is a demand for certainty. Absolutism. The coronavirus vaccines must be proven, they say absolutely for certain, to prevent all infections. The side effects must be zero. The risk must be nil. The proof must be complete. The vaccines must be flawless. They either work, or they don’t work – nothing in between, so the anti-vaxxers tell us.

And the king of the anti-vaxxers is Fox News host Tucker Carlson.

But Carlson and his ilk promote a fantasy. Perfection is a fantasy. Human beings don’t have access to perfection. No physician can offer perfect medications. No one has a perfect brain. No scientific study is perfect. We live in a world of probabilities. If we are wise, we judge our actions by what the majority of the best evidence tells us. We can expect nothing better. Yet, the conservative anti-vaccine rhetoric often insists on perfection. Their argument seems to be that the vaccines must work 100%, or 0%. It appears that nothing in-between makes sense to them. Yet we live in a world of in-betweens.

____________________

Read: Tucker Carlson Used a Textbook Fallacy to Question the Coronavirus Vaccines

____________________

 

Tucker Carlson Asks for Perfection

So, let’s look a passage from Tucker Carlson’s July 30, 2021 monologue:

“Now — surprise, surprise — they’re demanding that even after you got the shot, you wear a mask again, even when you’re outside.

“What’s going on here? Why are they doing this? There must be some reason for it. We’ve been wondering about it all week. Yesterday we asked the CDC to explain the reasoning behind it. They couldn’t tell us. Today they did. What an explanation. It turns out that the COVID vaccines – those wonder drugs that were absolutely perfect, more impressive than the moon landing, the drugs you were not allowed to question in any way – don’t actually work in the way they told us they did. The science is more complicated than we thought.”

Let’s pull out Carlson’s key phrase, which he uttered, his lips dripping with sarcasm: “those wonder drugs that were absolutely perfect.”

But No One Said Vaccines Were Perfect  

First, public health officials aren't saying that the vaccines were “absolutely perfect.” In April 2021, for example, Dr. Anthony Fauci said: “No matter what study you look at, the protection against severe disease leading to hospitalization is always well within the 90%, regardless of the study, regardless of the country.” He did not say absolutely perfect. He did not say 100% effective. He said 90%: nine times out of ten.

Further, in April 2021 the Center for Disease Control (CDC) released a major controlled study. The study found that the mRNA vaccines were highly effective, but not 100% effective:

“Prospective cohorts of 3,950 health care personnel, first responders, and other essential and frontline workers completed weekly SARS-CoV-2 testing for 13 consecutive weeks. Under real-world conditions, mRNA vaccine effectiveness of full immunization (³14 days after second dose) was 90% against SARS-CoV-2 infections regardless of symptom status; vaccine effectiveness of partial immunization (³14 days after first dose but before second dose) was 80%.”

The researchers stated the information quite clearly. The vaccines were 90% effective against infections two weeks after the second dose. That’s remarkable, but it is not 100%. It is not perfection.

Despite the admitted lack of perfection, the study concluded:

“Authorized mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are effective for preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection in real-world conditions. COVID-19 vaccination is recommended for all eligible persons.”

Similarly, an August 2021 research report found that the vaccines were highly but not completely effective:

“Among adults aged 65–74 years, effectiveness of full vaccination in preventing COVID-19–associated hospitalization was 96% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 94%–98%) for Pfizer-BioNTech, 96% (95% CI = 95%–98%) for Moderna, and 84% (95% CI = 64%–93%) for Janssen vaccine products.”

In other words, for older adults (like me), full vaccination prevented hospitalization with an effectiveness between 84% and 96%. That’s really good. It’s not perfect.

In September 2021 – this month – the CDC released a new study conducted among veterans hospitalized in Veterans Affairs medical centers. This is obviously a high-risk population. The results were somewhat less impressive than the April study, which was to be expected. The researchers nevertheless found that the vaccines were highly, but not perfectly, effective:

“During February 1–August 6, 2021, vaccine effectiveness among U.S. veterans hospitalized at five Veterans Affairs Medical Centers was 87%. mRNA COVID-19 vaccines remain highly effective, including during periods of widespread circulation of the SARS-CoV-2 B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant. Vaccine effectiveness in preventing COVID-19–related hospitalization was 80% among adults aged ³65 years compared with 95% among adults aged 18–64 years.”

So, the researchers found that the effectiveness in reducing hospitalizations was 80% among older adults and 95% among younger adults. That’s good, of course, but still not perfect.

But Wasn't the Smallpox Vaccine Perfect? (Uh, No, It Wasn't.)

But is Tucker Carlson moderating his views in the light of repeated scientific studies? So far, no. In his September 13, 2021 monologue, Carlson carried the demand for vaccine perfection even farther:

“Unlike say the smallpox vaccine, which prevents you from getting smallpox, the COVID vaccines do not necessarily prevent you from getting COVID. The COVID vaccine does not prevent you from spreading COVID to other people. The long-term effects of the COVID vaccines are unknown, and at this point cannot be known.”

As usual, Carlson talked about perfection: “the COVID vaccines do not necessarily prevent you from getting COVID” he said.  Yes, once again, Carlson suffered from the fantasy of perfection. Nor were smallpox vaccines 100% effective. A 2003 scientific article found that the smallpox vaccines were 90%+ effective in producing an immune response. That is not 100%. By pretending that the old vaccines were perfect, Carlson falsely implied that the new vaccines are substandard. Necessarily? No, of course not. Probably? Yes. Perfection is a fantasy.

Probability Is Our Only Real Goal

Every argumentation and debate textbook warns students not to expect perfection. In the realm of human affairs, what we work for is probability, supported by evidence. If we wait for something to be proved for certain, well, we will wait forever. In their textbook, Argumentation and Debate: Critical Thinking for Reasoned Decision-Making, Austin J. Freeley and David L. Steinberg explained that point precisely:

“Probability is associated with a high degree of likelihood (but not certainty) that a conclusion is true. As advocates we will spend much of our time trying to prove that our propositions have a high degree of probability and are more probably true than those of our opponents. For example, no method of contraception is 100 percent effective; even sterilization fails at times, and other methods range from 76 percent to 97.6 percent in their effectiveness. Thus, in choosing contraceptives, people are basing their decisions on probabilities.”

So, let us get back to Tucker Carlson’s July 30 conclusion: “The science is more complicated than we thought.” Is that not the point? Strangely enough, Carlson even admitted the problem of perfection at another point in his July 30 monologue:

“Surprised? You shouldn’t be surprised. Science is like that. It can change quickly. It is never really settled, despite what they tell you.”

Unfortunately, Carlson did not offer that cautionary comment to reassure his listeners that the bulk of scientific evidence was accurate. No, instead, he cast doubt on believing in any scientific information – since scientific information can change, should we believe it at all? “Despite what they tell you?” What a strange twist on the problem of perfection and certainty.

Conclusion: Judge by Probability and Evidence

Perhaps the anti-vaccine people insist that they will only change their minds if they hear 100% proof that they are wrong. Perhaps they think that is better to be wrong than to change. To insist on perfect proof, however, is to insist on something that can never be.

The scientific researchers and public health officials who Tucker Carlson misrepresented and ridiculed said exactly what they should have said. They said that the vaccines are effective with a stated degree of probability. Yes, it is possible to be vaccinated and still get sick. However, the evidence shows that the probability of being healthy is much greater if one is vaccinated than if one is not vaccinated. To pursue perfection is to chase a fantasy.

____________________

Read: “And This Is Their New Hoax:” Donald Trump’s Six Deadly Words Still Ravage Our Nation

____________________

P. S.: On a side note, if a person wants to be well-informed about scientific information, especially on a controversial subject, one can look directly at the scientific studies. Many of these are found on Google Scholar at scholar.google.com. On the right-hand column of a Google Scholar search, the reader can find full-text copies of some of the actual articles. Otherwise, your local library probably has access to the research databases. Librarians will be happy to help you find the information you need, and it doesn’t take much more time than browsing around on doubtful websites. If people want to do their own research, looking at Facebook posts and political blogs does not do the job. Listening to uninformed or devious political pundits is no better. The best way to avoid media misinformation is not to become cynical and turn to mindless negativism. No, bypass the media and go to the source! 

Governor DeSantis Twisted the Evidence and Put Florida’s Children in Danger

Teddy Says, Wear a Mask

Public officials have pleaded with us to follow the science as we fight the coronavirus pandemic. This seems to irritate conservatives, who sometimes pretend that science is on their side. Florida’s Governor Ron DeSantis issued an executive order (Florida Executive Order 21-175) forbidding Florida schools from requiring students to wear masks. As he issued that order, coronavirus has been spiking throughout his state, while Florida’s pediatric wards are filling up with young coronavirus patients. Disaster is inevitable. DeSantis offered powerful but empty arguments.

This post discusses how DeSantis distorted scientific evidence about mask-wearing. He twisted the science to support a pre-conceived political opinion.


Twisting the Science

Mask-wearing has become a flag issue for conservatives. Avoiding masks symbolizes their independence from what they consider obnoxious, pompous, and insulting advice from public health officials. DeSantis turned the table on scientists by citing scientific studies to support his policy. Although better scientific research (which we’ll look at in a minute) contradicts DeSantis’ interpretation, that, unfortunately, does not diminish the persuasive power of his line of argument.

So, let's look at one of DeSantis’ faulty arguments:

“WHEREAS, despite recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) ‘guidance,’ forcing students to wear masks lacks a well-grounded scientific justification; indeed, a Brown University study analyzed COVID-19 data for schools in Florida and found no correlation with mask mandates.”

Quotation marks around “guidance?” That was DeSantis’ snub against experts.

DeSantis did not, of course, cite his source. Who would ever expect a politician to cite sources? But I tracked it down. The study does, indeed, exist, but it was published on a website, not a scientific journal. The website warned: “This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed.… It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice.” So, although the preliminary study may turn out to be right, let’s not use it to justify endangering children’s health.


But What About Other Studies? Do They Support Masks in Schools?

I did, however, find a 2021 study, published in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. That article’s data showed that mask mandates, when combined with other public health methods, help control the virus’s spread. The authors explained that schools that “implemented multicomponent measures [which included mask mandates] to reduce spread reported lower in-school transmission unless lapses in these measures occurred.” 

The study wasn’t performed in Florida, however, so I guess DeSantis could decide to ignore it. I suppose he could also ignore a Georgia study which discovered that: “Adjusting for county-level incidence, COVID-19 incidence was 37% lower in schools that required teachers and staff members to use masks, and 39% lower in schools that improved ventilation, compared with schools that did not use these prevention strategies.” That, of course, shows a dramatic improvement from mask-wearing.

One of the best general scientific articles about mask-wearing was published this year in an excellent peer-reviewed scientific journal, Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology. The authors found that mask mandates do, indeed, help a lot. They explained that “Several studies have demonstrated that face masks decrease the spread of SARS-CoV-2 virus. “They concluded that “Mask mandates that include minimal exceptions will lead to a reduction in community COVID-19 rates, decrease hospitalizations, and save lives.”

However, can ordinary face masks slow down the virus? A 2021 review of research, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, a highly-rated scientific journal, concluded that widespread mask-wearing could reduce community spread. This should, the article explains, be combined with other public health measures. The researchers said that, “places and time periods where mask usage is required or widespread have shown substantially lower community transmission.”

The point? DeSantis picked and chose his science – actually, he mentioned only one study, and not necessarily the best one – while ignoring better evidence that contradicted his opinion. Scientific studies don’t always reach the same conclusion, which is why scientists like to repeat studies over and over in different situations. That way, they can be sure they have the truth. One study, by itself, is never conclusive.

Was DeSantis Learning about Masks? Or Trying to Prove a Pre-Determined Opinion?

DeSantis wasn’t looking for truth; he was just scoring political points. As communication scholar George Ziegelmueller pointed out in his 1993 argumentation and debate textbook, there is a difference between inquiry and advocacy. We are doing inquiry when we want to learn something. We engage in advocacy when we want to prove something we’ve already decided. In other words, are we willing to learn from science? Or will we just cherry-pick science to prove a cynical agenda? 

DeSantis’ Executive Order engaged in advocacy, not inquiry. Politics obviously drove his decision. He then fished around for the best evidence he could find. That evidence wasn’t especially good, while better evidence contradicted his decision. So, unwilling to deal with truth, he did the best he could to promote a dangerous, unwise policy. He was following public opinion, while making little effort to lead.

 
That is outrageous.

If you want your children to live, ignore the governor of Florida and put facemasks on the precious little ones until this pandemic is over.

____________________

Biden's Delta Variant Speech: Showing Leadership During the Pandemic

Trump and the Maskless Crowd: A Flag Issue for Conservatives

On Elaine's Blog: Should Children Wear Masks All Day in School?

____________________

P.S. I knew the late Professor Ziegelmueller quite well. He was a great guy, and I assure my readers that he had no patience with sloppy arguments like the ones that DeSantis offered in his Executive Order.

Photo: Elaine Clanton Harpine