“What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.” — Christopher Hitchens, philosopher
Ratcliffe, Susan, ed. (2016). “Oxford Essential Quotations: Facts”. Oxford Reference (4 ed.). Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780191826719. Retrieved 4 November 2020
Similar maxims to what Dr. Hitchens stated can be found in any of several centuries. For instance, Carl Sagan has a weaker variation that said, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” But, Hitchens applied it not simply to extraordinary claims, but even to daily argumentation. There was a Latin proverb that roughly translates as, “What is asserted gratuitously may be denied gratuitously.” There is also an Alder’s Razor that is much more complexly worded. However, all of these sayings have something in common. If you claim something is true but do not or cannot show it, then I am fully justified in simply refusing to believe it without having to even argue against it.
This is important because all too many of the arguments that one hears today would fit any of the dicta stated above. They are either allegations or claims without proof or with proof so weak that it is likely unprovable. For instance, you can find people claiming that we never landed on the moon and that it was all faked video evidence. While the old show Mythbusters did tackle that one, the claim was so gratuitous and so based on so little evidence that it was not even necessary for the government to defend itself. It simply ignored the allegation and it has been roundly ignored by the vast majority of people.
I have started to realize that many of the arguments that have a tendency to get me heated up are those that are undefeatable simply because they rely on having no verifiable proof or very little proof. For instance, the we-did-not-land-on-the-moon claims do not meet the criteria set by Carl Sagan. Rather than having extraordinary proof, they are all based on minute supposed discrepancies in the old grainy videos. But according to the criteria above, to deny an event viewed by millions around the world and visible during part of the journey from home telescopes, as well as traceable by ham radio operators able to triangulate locations, takes an extraordinary level of proof.
Think of events such as the Pentagon Papers or the Watergate Scandal. The level of proof necessary to show the lies of the USA government regarding Vietnam took the leak of the Pentagon communications to the news media. The Watergate Scandal was broken by the provable and verifiable revelations of Deep Throat, the inside leak to the news media. USA claims on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq fell simply because there was no proof and the attempt to explain it by claiming that the weapons were taken to Syria failed because of the lack of proof. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary levels of evidence.
I can remember as a young Christian reading Chick tracts. They made astounding claims. The most volatile claim was that of a cabal of Roman Catholic leaders, led by the Jesuits, and headed by the Pope that was involved in all types of salacious behavior as well as planning to take over the world governments. When the lack of proof was brought up, the answer was that “they” had hidden the truth. When it came out that the ex-Jesuit priest who was revealing the secrets had been dismissed, it was claimed that the evidence against him had been fabricated. What there really was, was a lack of proof that anything the priest said was true. Lack of proof is not proof of a Deep State.
In reading about Hitchens Razor, I have realized that I need not get angry. I can simply dismiss those types of arguments out of hand. If you have no proof, I need not even answer your claim, I can dismiss it out of hand. No need to counter-argue, no need to get angry. Your claim can be dismissed. The reality is that most conspiracy theories rely on no extraordinary proof. Rather, they often see the lack of proof as proof that there is a conspiracy hiding the truth. The reason there are no vast number of court cases and investigations into the allegations is not because there is a conspiracy but because there is no evidence.
Sadly, I know myself. I doubt that I really will be able to keep my supposed cool. But, If I can remind myself that I need not argue against claims with no proof then maybe I can keep from getting hot under the collar. Besides, I must admit to some inappropriate chortling lately when people realize that I dismissed their claims out of hand because of lack of evidence. Next, I need to work on my Christian charity. It has been sadly lacking, at times.
Finally, you may wish to look up in a logic book “argumentum ad ignorantiam”. You will find this most helpful.
For me the word evidence is important, if you discover subsequent evidence meaning something that can be reproduced and can be peer reviewed to confirm a proposal. It moves from dismissive to consideration. Christopher Hitchens seems to have used that phrase in order to Guide discussion. Semantics can be interesting.
You must have problems with history. In the philosophy of history, the challenge has been to construct reasonable principles that allow for the writing of history. There is more than one case in which the available evidence is little more than one or two written documents and some slight archeological evidence. And, it is not repeatable, only verifiable.
Even then, the current history crisis is that the USA is now filled with people who have taken the view that any history with which they disagree is the result of either bias or conspiracy. Thus, the philosophy of history is slowly being destroyed because of a lack of trust in any document with which you do not personally agree.
Ernesto M. Obregón Like Bill Barr said, “history is written by the victors” …NOT!