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

Critical Thinking on the Cheap

Educators across the nation want their students to learn critical thinking. I was an undergraduate philosophy major and participated on my high school and college debate teams. Those were wonderful ways to learn critical thinking. I taught argumentation and debate at three different universities. My classes often included sophisticated critical thinking techniques: my students learned to identify common fallacies, to analyze syllogisms, to separate qualified from unqualified sources, to identify simple statistical errors, and to understand the ins and outs of cause-and-effect reasoning. Some of that was very hard to learn.

Even though those topics were hard, it was wonderful for students to learn about them, and I hope they remember all of it. Sometimes, however, critical thinking only requires you to slow down for a few moments to think about a controversial issue. It’s not always hard. Critical thinking often requires only a trifling effort. Unfortunately, many people don’t seem to devote even the tiniest amount of energy to sort out whether something is true or false. So let’s look at some examples of how we can evaluate controversial points in ways that are simple and easy. In other words, I want to show how critical thinking can sometimes be quick and easy.

The liberal wing of American politics has, in the past, sometimes taken off on extreme flights of absurd fantasy. In recent years, however, it is the conservatives who have come unglued, so I’m going to pick on them. Sorry about that. Here are three recent examples where a great many conservatives believe ridiculous things. Yet, with the tiniest effort, anyone could figure out that the conservative conspiracy theories are absurd.


Hydras in the Vaccines?

According to a popular conspiracy theory, scientists and other supposedly evil people have placed a tiny creature, the hydra vulgaris, into the coronavirus vaccines. According to the conspiracy theorists, the hydra enters a human body when injected. It then supposedly consumes or controls the patient’s brain.

This isn’t a particularly trivial conspiracy theory. New Hampshire State Representative Ken Weyler circulated a document about the hydra vulgaris living in the vaccines. 

The hard way to think critically. Of course, one could discredit the conspiracy theory the hard way. That is, a person could read the scientific literature. Doing so, one learns that the hydra requires a fresh-water environment and that it is intolerant to preservatives and disinfectants. Therefore, it would obviously perish in a vaccine vial. That kind of critical thinking, however, requires effort. One would need to track down hard-science sources, in addition to knowing something about vaccine formulation. One would also need to be informed about the human body’s chemistry. Is there an easier way to deal with this conspiracy theory?

The easy way to think critically. Here’s a simple way to dispose of this conspiracy theory. The hydra vulgaris’ body is about 1 mm wide. After acquiring that one simple fact, you can go to any vaccination site and look at the needles that they use to inject the vaccines. You don’t have to measure them. Just look at the incredible tiny openings in the needles. The openings are obviously much narrower than 1 mm. Therefore, the hydra’s body would be squashed as it passed through. And thus, the conspiracy theory is also squashed. Simple enough? And you don’t need to understand about preservatives or hydra habitats. You just need to use your eyes.


Microchips in the Vaccines?

Of course, the oldest conspiracy theory about coronavirus vaccines says that Bill Gates has placed microchips in the vaccines. In July 2021, a TheEconomist/YouGov survey found that 5% of Americans think there is definitely a microchip in the vaccines, while 15% think there is probably a microchip in the vaccines. Only 46% believed that this is definitely false. 

The hard way to think critically. One could, I suppose, research about vaccine development. One could determine whether microchips can survive in the vaccine’ s solution. One could use electronic devices to find out whether patients emit electromagnetic radiation after receiving the vaccine. What a lot of work! 

The easy way to think critically. We can settle this the same way that we settled the hydra conspiracy theory. Go to a vaccination site. Just look at the needles. The syringes are incredibly tiny. The needles are very, very small. You have one or more microchips in your cell phone. Look inside your cell phone. Would even the smallest microchip in that phone pass through the injection needle? Obviously not. Conspiracy theory destroyed.

The nanoparticles in the vaccines are not tiny robots, which can be verified easily. 


Gas Prices and the Keystone Pipeline

Any devotee of the conservative media hears that the prices are spiking because President Joe Biden canceled construction on the Keystone pipeline project. For example, former Vice President Mike Pence threw the kitchen sink at Biden about spiking energy prices: “gas prices have risen across the country because of this Administration's war on energy—shutting down the Keystone Pipeline, shutting down oil and gas leases in this country—while they were incomprehensibly green-lighting the Nord Stream 2 deal for the Russians.”

The hard way to think critically. Now, was Pence correct? Well, no. We could look at it the hard way. We could, following principles of cause and effect reasoning, investigate whether alternate causes explain rising gas prices. That’s the kind of thing that I taught my students to do. We would also need to find out what qualified economists have to say. I also taught my students to do that. And what would we then discover?

Well, we could dispense with the Keystone pipeline conspiracy theory by engaging in rather sophisticated economic study. For example, after careful research in high-quality sources, one learns that the United States has plenty of excess pipeline capacity. One might also reflect that canceling the Keystone pipeline’s permits obviously affects future construction, not present supply. One could also learn that American oil companies have reduced their production levels. 

We also would find that oil prices are not only spiking across the United States but around the world. This rise began in October 2021, as the economy opened up from the coronavirus pandemic. Prices spiked badly in January 2022 as Russian forces gathered along the Ukraine-Russian border. Russia is a major oil-producing nation. The obvious explanation for rising gasoline prices is that producers are worried about whether the world will continue to get reliable oil supplies from Russia. It’s hard to believe that canceling the Keystone pipeline – which was not yet in operation – would have caused a spike in energy prices at the same time that Russia invaded Ukraine.

That probably explains why Joseph Von Nesse, a research economist at the University of South Carolina, shows that gas prices are rising in part because pandemic restrictions have been lifted and people are driving more, and partly because Russian oil imports have become unreliable. Simple supply and demand. 

Similarly, John Rogers, who is a professor of Economics and Finance at American International College, explains that “geopolitical instability” caused by the Ukraine crisis will contribute to high gasoline prices.

But, wow, that requires us to look at multiple facts, consult expert opinion, and understand the basics of cause-and-effect reasoning. In other words, it’s a lot more work than sitting in front of the television listening to a Fox News pundit.

The Easy Way to Think Critically. There is, however, an easier way to settle the issue. Just look at the timeline. Biden canceled the Keystone pipeline project in January 2021. Remember, of course, that Biden only canceled future construction. Yet, prices are spiking now, in March 2022. That’s quite a long lag, isn’t it? When the Ukraine-Russia war and the pandemic are current, and canceling the Keystone pipeline is not? The conspiracy theory’s timeline does not work. I noticed that Republicans frequently complain, bitterly, about canceling Keystone. They generally do not mention the date on which it was canceled. For, if they mentioned the date, their accusation would disintegrate.


Conclusion

Yes, critical thinking can be hard. To do a thorough job of thinking critically, you must to sort out good sources from bad sources and evaluate different perspectives, reaching the most logical conclusion that is best supported by the evidence. You need to be willing to look carefully at both sides of a question before deciding. That’s a lot of work, and it requires a certain amount of academic skill.

Often, however, we can dispose of untrue claims quickly and easily. Hydras and microchips cannot pass through a tiny needle. Canceling a pipeline project (not a pipeline, but a construction project) a year ago probably has little effect on energy price spikes today. You don’t have to be a genius to figure any of this out. You just have to take a few seconds to think.

There are a few catches. There always are. First, anger shuts down critical thinking. If you turn on Fox News or listen to talk radio, you might hear hours and hours of people screaming in rage about subjects which they often know little about. They are not persuading you with facts. They are just getting you so angry that you can’t think straight. So, Step One is to calm down.

Step Two, which is even harder, is to look at both sides of every controversial question. I don’t always like Fox News, but I read their website every day. I often read the once-great conservative flagship National Review. Why? Because I don’t want to restrict myself to sources that I already agree with. My fifth-grade teacher, Mrs. Dixon, told our class to get news from more than one source. She was right. And, in today's polarized environment, you can’t just go to multiple sources; you need to seek out sources that give you different viewpoints.

There is, of course, the question of time and effort. It took me maybe 30 minutes to find the facts that I cited in this post. It wasn’t all that hard. Which takes more time? Listening to Tucker Carlson bloviate for 60 minutes? Or 30 minutes conducting research from qualified sources? But that leaves out the question of effort. It is, unfortunately, easier to sit on your couch and yell at the television than it is to evaluate information. Yet my point is that it is often almost – almost, but not entirely – effortless to refute many common conspiracy theories.

Many conspiracy theories and wild smears disintegrate quickly if people will just stop to think. Often (not always) a brief moment of thinking is enough. Not everyone can take a college class in informal logic, research methods, or debate. But everyone can stop to check their beliefs against simple, obvious facts of reality. Yes, critical thinking is sometimes hard, and the more we learn about it, the better off we will be. Sometimes, however, it is almost effortless. Are we willing to make a tiny effort to learn the truth? For the simplest critical thinking could be enough to save America.

________________

Earlier Posts about Critical Thinking:  

Biden Countered Russian Disinformation about Ukraine. Are People Listening?

Barack Obama's HBCU Convention Speech Leads Us to Ask: Why Do People Celebrate Unreason?

One of my all-time most popular posts:

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

________________

Research Note: If you would like to learn more about critical thinking, there is no better place to start than Howard Kahane’s groundbreaking book, Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric. Used bookstores are selling it as low as $4, including shipping. 

________________

P.S. Real conspiracies happen all the time. The difference between dangerous, real conspiracies and foolish conspiracy theories comes down to one word: evidence. 

Sean Patrick O'Rourke's Speech about "Wisdom and Eloquence:" A Defense of the Liberal Arts

As the nation's turmoil grows out of control, perhaps we can reach back to ancient wisdom and find that the liberal arts might give us our solution. “Liberal arts” does not imply that one is a political liberal. The great rhetorical theorist Richard Weaver was profoundly conservative, and Russell Kirk, the intellectual founder of modern conservatism, was a historian. The “liberal” in “liberal arts” implies that one is expanding one’s thought, not that one is adopting any one political opinion.

On September 11, 2017, the anniversary of the terrorist attacks against New York and Washington, my friend and colleague Sean Patrick O’Rourke, the Director of the Center for Speaking and Listening and Professor of Rhetoric and American Studies at Sewanee, The University of the South, gave a speech on “Wisdom and Eloquence” at the Dedication of the Learning Commons at the University’s duPont Library. This speech was recognized by publication in the November 2017 issue of Vital Speeches of the Day. O'Rourke gave his speech at a time when education in general, and liberal arts education in particular, come under attack from too many quarters. In addition to thanking the many people whose work made the project possible, O'Rourke explained that, “we also gather to mark this moment in Sewanee’s long and distinguished history of contributions to liberal education.”

Like all good ceremonial or epideictic speakers, O’Rourke reached to a larger issue, deploring the United States’ growing willingness to abandon critical thought:

We are still feeling the effects of 9/11 and its aftermath: Recent independent polls by Pew, Gallup, and USA Today all indicate that we are more divided now than ever before. That division is evident in our use of corrosive, abusive, and hateful speech, our failure to listen to each other, our unwillingness to research and investigate the controversies that divide us, our willing and willful ignorance of science and scientific communications, and our tendency to let raw power replace informed debate, reasoned deliberation, and considered judgment. Our republic, commentators now tell us, is threatened more than at any time since the Civil War.

Related Link: Pink and the Power of Pearls at the VMA Awards: Epideictic Excellence

As I write this, Americans are rioting in the streets to protest police killings, while white nationalist groups flock to the cities to join in the mayhem, presumably hoping to cast blame on African Americans.

Looking for a solution to our national divisions, O’Rourke turned to the liberal arts. He explained how Marcus Tullius Cicero saw the ancient Roman Republic under internal attack. Rome’s great orator “retired to his villa,” O'Rourke explained, “thought deeply, and wrote to remedy the ills of his society.” To Cicero, the keys to civic leadership were, O'Rourke explained, “wisdom and eloquence.”

This thought led the speaker to discuss the Learning Commons dedication: “the space we dedicate today is the beginning of our answer to our civic crisis.” He explained that the Learning Commons “includes the enormous resources, both electronic and printed, of a superb college library.” Vitally, however, the Learning Commons also houses “a team of scholars, tutors, fellows, and teachers committed to working together to help every student achieve, in her own way and in his own field of study, ‘sapientia et eloquentia,’ wisdom and eloquence, never one . . . without the other.”

How do wisdom and eloquence, the goals of liberal arts education, answer our national and intellectual and political crisis? Using the rhetorician's classic tool, O'Rourke tied his points together with the trope of parallel structure:

To elevate the level of public discourse in our all-too-rancorous republic and to listen to one another even as we disagree;

To answer the bigoted and uninformed tweet with reasoned, informed, and considered judgment— . . . ;

To meet the defamatory utterance with passion, guided and directed by reason, . . . ;

To speak truth to power even when the risk is great and the fear nearly paralyzing;

To pursue knowledge, to weigh evidence no matter how contradictory or complex; to distinguish what is real from what is concocted, to engage questions even when they are difficult;

To eschew the easy talking points of partisan propagandists and instead embrace the nuances and complexities always present in any worthwhile debate or discussion;

To understand, in the end, that There. Is. No. Immaculate. Perception. That each of us will always have a somewhat different perspective on the world, its many issues and concerns, and the several routes forward. And that, while agreement on any of these points may be rare, constructive disagreement is a goal worthy of a liberally educated citizen in a republic.

As basic goals of liberal arts education, each of these points arises from a unified way to understand wisdom, and the parallel phrasing – “To elevate” – “To speak” – “To understand” – helped the listeners grasp the unity that underlies all critical thought. Yes, to trope Cicero, eloquence can lead us to wisdom just as wisdom leads us to eloquence.

Related Link: John McCain's Speech about "Spurious Nationalism"

Today, even more than in 2017, we hear our nation’s leaders attack science and denigrate our legal system, appeal to misinformation about our nation's history to justify stunningly unwise proposals, and call one another names because reasoning with our neighbor becomes too much trouble. To be wise, we must learn to think for ourselves, and not just to think, but to think clearly, to learn the lessons that history teaches, and to learn humbly that any of us can be wrong about just about anything.

So, no, those of us who study the liberal arts (my own undergraduate degree was in philosophy) are unlikely to get rich or famous. If, however, the liberal arts die from neglect, if we lose wisdom and eloquence, what good will the rest of knowledge do for us?

Like all good ceremonial speakers, O'Rourke praised the people and the institution that were being dedicated. He also, however, elevated the audience to think about moral principles. Furthermore, he showed, in a subtle but powerful manner, then an important public policy – the pursuit and encouragement of liberal arts – provides the only solution to our national identity crisis.


P.S.: Interested readers might want to look at O'Rourke's article about the liberal arts college, which he published in the Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement (click the link and scroll). Also, anyone interested in rhetoric and public speaking should keep an eye on Vital Speeches of the Day, a nonpartisan publication that publishes notable speeches, and which, before budget cuts, used to be a fixture in every respectable public and high school library. Also, if you click the "William D. Harpine's Publications" button above, you will find links to my own modest research contributions about ceremonial or epideictic speech.