Goal Post Shifting

Goal post shifting is not a fallacy that is used in arguing for conspiracy theories. Rather it is used in defense of them. Perhaps the biggest problem in dealing with conspiracism is that facts do not matter. The person arguing a conspiracy theory has their little quasi facts, but more importantly they are arguing from a position of belief first evidence later. This is once the conspiracy theory takes hold. I know that I am generalizing the position here but typically a person has a feeling that something isn't right, then they move toward digging around for evidence that they were right, then they begin a series of only looking for the evidence that supports that belief. Make no mistake, conspiracism is every bit a faith based argument as religious belief. Try arguing with the Ken Hams of the world that the story of Noah's ark is literally impossible to have happened (never mind the putting the animals on the boat, think about the plants and oddly, the fish). They won't budge an inch on their position because that position is faith based.

One infuriating technique that they use is what is called goal post shifting. The conversation usually begins with a generous conciliation gesture by the conspiracy theorist: "if you can show me X I'll admit I'm wrong." You provide X, and they reply with "now you have to show me X+1." Once this happens I've found it more productive to call them out on what they are doing and leave the conversation...politely. My reply is "ok, so you are arguing from a belief not from evidence, this conversation isn't going anywhere anymore."

An illustrative example is a return to the Birther argument. Not the one that we covered in last post but the one that we are more familiar with: the Obama Birther argument. I'm not going to dredge through the entire history of the movement or its claims, but I would be remiss if I didn't give a brief history.

Back in 2008, Hillary Clinton was the odds on favorite to win the Democratic Party nomination for president. However, and I don't have the political explanation for why this happened she began to lose primary after primary to Illinois Senator Barak Obama. A relatively new political figure who held the stage during John Kerry's 2004 Presidential Democratic Convention. Some people became really upset about this and began shouting "conspiracy" or that the election was rigged in favor of Obama. Just typical, my person is losing stuff. Just ask the Bernie Sanders supporters.

What followed was an accusation that the new front runner was not only illegitimately winning these primaries but that he was not able to fulfill the office of president. This is the same accusation that was levelled against Sen. Ted Cruz in the 2016 Republican Party campaign. An organization called "PUMA." Originally the title meant "Part United My Ass" as a protest against the Democratic party's seeming inevitable nomination. They seemingly advocated for their members to vote for Sen. John McCain who was running against Obama in the general election as a spite vote. PUMA became an official PAC (Political Action Committee) and never wavered in support of Clinton. It's important that we understand this was not an official Clinton group. According to Politico, PUMA was instrumental in disseminating the original Birther argument. This email text is the crux of their argument:

"Barack Obama's mother was living in Kenya with his Arab-African father late in her pregnancy. She was not allowed to travel by plane then, so Barack Obama was born there and his mother took him to Hawaii to register his birth."

These anonymous email chains may have been going around but it really wasn't until Pennsylvania attorney and 9/11 Truther Phillip Berg filed a lawsuit in August of 2008, that it began garnering attention outside of the internet. Berg, like Murphy, was also a Clinton supporter. It wasn't until the run up to the general election that Republicans began adopting the theory, and once the election was over the extremists on the right kept it going. Even Bill O'Reilly publicly denounced the theory on his since cancelled daily show on Fox News. It had died for awhile until current President Donald Trump resurrected the argument holding news conferences about what his private detectives' investigations.

The birther argument introduces us to goal post shifting because on the surface this is an absurd conspiracy to undertake. Why would the Democratic party nominate a person who was ineligible to serve as president? It would be like the Republicans nominating Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to run for president and just hoping that no one noticed. Initially the call was for Obama to release his birth certificate, something no president has had to do before: and he did.

The goal post was first shifted when Birthers began claiming that this was a "short form" certificate obtainable by anyone. They wanted to see the long form version, which is a thing I didn't know existed. It should be noted that the "short form" certificate is universally accepted across the country as a legal document proving the location of the birth of any citizen, yet this fact was ignored by the conspiracists. In August of 2011, the birthers received their evidence, President Obama released his long form certificate. They wanted it and they got it, that should have settled the debate right? Well no, the easily predictable cries of "fake" went around the conspiracy circles.

The next step was to begin asking for the President's school transcripts. This seems like an odd step, but their point was that he was registered at Columbia as a foreign student and the school transcripts should be enough to show that he was a foreign born student. The birth announcements in the Hawaiian news papers were not enough either. Every time they asked for a piece of evidence and were shown it, they move the goal post back just a little more until they've reached a point where no evidence could be provided. Asking for eye witness testimony from the hospital workers themselves would be an example of this, however I know of no popular birther that has done so.

Another excellent example of this is the argument against Evolution. Whereas the theory of evolution now postulates that dinosaurs evolved into birds the quick response is that there is a lack of transition fossils. If you show them the archaeopteryx, a dinosaur with feathers that looks like the result of the mating between a lizard and a bird, they scoff and ask for a more transitory fossil. In human evolution they employ the same tactic. I could go through their argument but this clip from Futurama does it much better.

Goal post shifting serves to illustrate the belief side of the conspiracy argument. We have to keep in mind that goal post shifting is also a delay tactic with the express intent of exhausting the skeptic. Remember the bullshit asymmetry principle, changing the threshold means significantly more work for the debunker. Each claim of "fake" or "I need more" requires a great deal more work than simple denial. While giving up may seem to let them win, you'll never beat them. Another good counter to use is to lock them into one piece of evidence, really get them to commit and when they deny or continue to shift remind them of their earlier commitment. If you even have the suspicion that this is going to be their method, ignore the debate and just ask what their threshold is, provide it, and then move on.