Moving the Goalposts

An informal fallacy that occurs when evidence is presented in response to a specific claim that is subsequently dismissed and greater evidence is then demanded. Or, demanding from an opponent that he/she address more points after the initial counter-argument has sufficiently provided evidence against the primary argument. That is, the requirement for a sufficient rebuttal is continually changed after each counter-argument so as to never be able to formulate a proper rebuttal. This tactic ensures that the initial argument can never be refuted by changing the rules, which is disingenuous and adulterates the truth-seeking nature of a proper discourse.

Logical Form

Claim A is proposed and sufficiently rebutted.

The evidence provided against claim A is insufficient as more evidence is needed.
More evidence is provided, but still deemed insufficient.
...
Therefore, claim A remains true.

Claim A is proposed and sufficiently rebutted.
Claim B is then proposed and sufficiently rebutted.
...
Claim Z is then proposed and sufficiently rebutted.
Ad infinitum.

Examples

1) This type of fallacy is often encountered by individuals who are skeptical of vaccine safety. Whether it is the ingredients, the vaccine schedule, autism, or some other irrational fear, there is always some reason as to why these individuals refuse to vaccinate. None of these arguments are founded in reason as they are readily refutable, but this doesn't seem to dissuade them from persisting in their irrational beliefs. Let's examine the following disputation between Person 1 and Person 2:

1: Will you be getting a COVID-19 vaccine?

2: I don't think they're safe.

1: This is the point of safety trials. None of the vaccines were approved for use in the population until they sufficiently demonstrated both safety and effectiveness.

2: I still don't think that they're safe as I’m a bit skeptical of vaccine safety in general. Plus, these vaccines aren't fully approved; they just have emergency approval at this point. I will most likely get the vaccine once it’s fully approved.

1: But, it has been demonstrated through decades of evidence that vaccines are both safe and effective. Here is a great website with a number of resources explaining how we know this [1]. Also, just because they have emergency approval doesn't mean that they weren't adequately studied for both safety and effectiveness before approval.

2: Yea, but do you have more sources than this? How do I know that this source isn't bought and paid for? I don't trust the FDA to make good decisions when it comes to this emergency approval. It all just feels too rushed.

1: Sure. Here are three more websites that explain how the scientific community knows that vaccines are overwhelmingly safe [2,3,4]. Also, these vaccines weren't rushed; the mRNA technology and coronaviruses (i.e., the group of viruses that the SARS-CoV-2 virus belongs to) have been studied for years prior to the pandemic. All of the infrastructure was in place when the pandemic hit, which is why we were able to innovate so quickly to generate a new vaccine [5].

2: Ok, I'll take a look, but there's probably a conflict of interest. Plus, there are a number of studies that show that vaccines cause autism, which is something I'm concerned about as well.

1: Nope, there is no evidence. The original study that concluded there was a connection between the two was retracted. Here are a number of resources explaining why that study was flawed [6]. Also, here are number of resources going into how it is that we know that vaccines don't cause Autism [7]. Further, these studies you say show that vaccines cause Autism do not conclude that. The vaccines will be fully approved soon; will you be getting it then?

2: Well, I'll have to look more into it, but as far as I'm concerned, the science isn't settled. I still think the vaccines are unsafe and have no intention of getting vaccinated even if it is fully approved by the FDA.

Explanation: Person 2 is never satisfied with any evidence presented by Person 1 that points to vaccine safety. Whenever Person 1 presents evidence that rebuts a position by Person 2, they either claim the evidence is insufficient or pivot to another position that Person 1 then needs to address. Specifically, you can see how Person 2 moved the goal posts surrounding the vaccine and emergency approval. They said they would likely get it once fully approved, but once Person 1 stated that full approval should happen soon, Person 2 moved the goal posts on this issue and decided that even if the vaccine was fully approved he/she would not be getting it. Clearly, no amount of evidence will ever be sufficient in Person 2's view. They will just keep moving the goal posts until Person 1 becomes exhausted or they mutually agree to cease the conversation as it becomes clear that Person 2 isn't open to changing their mind even when presented with credible evidence refuting their position.

2) Complimentary and alternative medicine (CAM) has been around for decades and has only gained in popularity as more wellness influencers, celebrity promoters, and medical professionals continue flooding the information landscape with these therapies. Unfortunately, the vast majority of these therapies have shown to be no more effective than a placebo when rigorously tested for the maladies that they claim to cure. Unsurprisingly, throughout this pandemic, a number of alternative therapies have been recommended coming from the CAM community to “boost” your immune system naturally to avoid contracting COVID-19 and/or recommending unfounded therapies after you've already contracted it.

Consider the following exchange between Person 1 and Person 2 in regards to ivermectin and COVID-19:

1: Have you heard about ivermectin and how it can be used to treat COVID? I recently watched a video of a Doctor speaking before a school board about how he has successfully treated some of his patients who had COVID with ivermectin.

2: Yea, I heard about that. From my understanding, it isn't approved by the FDA for treatment [8].

1: Well, besides that video I saw, my neighbor John got COVID and he started taking ivermectin and he swears by it for his quick recovery. Just another example of how ivermectin can be used to treat COVID.

2: I'm happy to hear that John recovered, but just because someone started taking something and got better doesn't necessarily mean that this is what caused them to get better. The placebo effect is something to always be concerned about when investigating anything health related, which is why rigorous scientific studies are so important. To date, ivermectin isn't recommended for use outside of clinical trials as the evidence isn't robust enough. That is, the strength of the evidence hasn't reached a threshold yet to where the scientific community is comfortable recommending it for treatment. There is a distinct difference between scientific studies that show efficacy in a test tube versus a person.

1: That's not what I heard. I came across a study that a lot of my friends were sharing on Facebook that highlighted the benefits as an effective treatment. That's science that shows it works. If you can show me why this science is wrong, I’ll change my mind on ivermectin.

2: Are you talking about the study “Efficacy and Safety of Ivermectin for Treatment and prophylaxis of COVID-19 Pandemic”?

1: Yea, I think that's the one.

2: Well, this study was only published to a pre-print site which means that it didn't undergo peer review yet, which is very important in science. Further, the study was withdrawn due to “ethical concerns.” Therefore, the conclusions drawn from this scientific study shouldn't be trusted [9].

1: I find it interesting to hear that the study was retracted. It's probably because it works. “Big pharma” wouldn't want any competition for their vaccines so they can corner the market; follow the money.

2: Or it was pulled for the actual reasons listed by the site. There's no need to invoke a conspiracy theory. I'll agree that there's always financial incentives to watch out for when it comes to corporations and products they offer, but you can't use this as a blanket statement to dismiss a fact that you don't want to hear.

1: Yea, but this isn't a singular instance of money getting in the way of effective treatments pushed to the peripheries of society by big pharma. There are a variety of CAM treatments such as acupuncture and other ways to boost your immune system naturally that they claim don't work. It's all about money if you ask me. I know these things work and big pharma dismisses them because they can't be patented. I believe my neighbor John and that it worked for him. Do you have evidence to show that money doesn't corrupt most science? I don't think so.

Explanation: Person 1 is clearly moving the goal posts. They present claims which are then repudiated by Person 2. However, this is clearly never good enough for Person 1 as they simply ignore the rebuttal and move onto another point demanding that there are other explanations. Person 1 even states that they’d change their mind if Person 2 could demonstrate why the study mentioned is flawed, which Person 2 does, but then Person 1 ignores what Person 2 says and moves the goal posts by invoking a conspiracy theory. Further, at one point, Person 1 commits the anecdotal fallacy, uses the “big pharma” gambit to imply that all medical science is corrupted by money*, shifts the burden of proof, and clearly doesn’t understand the hierarchy of scientific evidence.

The “video” referenced by Person 1 features Dr. Daniel Stock who bombards the school board members with volumes of disinformation in an attempt to overwhelm them and convince the audience that his position is correct. It is a disingenuous tactic known as a gish gallop where the goal is to inundate the opponent by rapidly firing off one argument after another so that either the opponent won’t have time to respond or has no hope of being able to rebut every point made. This tactic is fallacious as it adulterates the truth seeking nature of a dialogue [10].

Regarding CAM treatments to “boost” your immune system naturally, there is no evidence that you can actually do this or would even want to as a hyperactive immune system could cause a serious autoimmune disease. However, there are a variety of things that you can do from a lifestyle standpoint to make sure that you're in optimal health, which includes your immune system [11]. An optimized immune system will help your body to keep pathogens from taking hold, but it's often not enough, which is why vaccinations are so important. Even if you're a very healthy individual, you can still enjoy the added protection that a vaccine will impart. Plus, you're helping to stop community spread, which will save lives. Beyond the logical foibles committed by Person 1, it is evident that no amount of evidence will ever be sufficient as the goal posts are re-positioned to protect the belief that ivermectin is an effective therapy against COVID-19.

*As I've written about before, it is always important to keep an eye on financial incentives in any area of society as this can lead some down an unscrupulous path. Medical science and the pharmaceutical industry in particular, are not free from this problem. That being said, “follow the money” shouldn't be used as an omnibus argument against the scientific community's position on a therapy.

3) Global warming is arguably the greatest threat to the future of our species. Rising seas, ocean acidification, severe weather events, habitat loss, increased conflict, etc. The list of challenges that global warming will cause could cause an eventual collapse if we do not take sufficient action. According to the latest IPCC report, we are not on target to meet 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming set forth by the Paris Climate Agreement (PCA) and will exceed it even in the most optimistic scenarios. However, limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius by the end of the century is still within reach if we take drastic action [12].

One of the greatest challenges is not the lack of technologies to address global warming, but the willingness of people to act. It is unfortunate that money and power are attempting to usurp a sustainable future from the rest of us. From strategic disinformation campaigns orchestrated by fossil fuel companies – these are the same stratagems implemented by tobacco companies to sow doubt on the science linking smoking and lung cancer - to the toxic politics surrounding it, global warming science has been the unfortunate target of human greed. Particularly infuriating is the persistent misinformation that is spread by the victims of these disinformation campaigns who then proselytize others to embrace science denial.

Consider the following exchange between Person 1 and Person 2 in regards to the latest IPCC report:

1: Have you seen the latest IPCC report?

2: I have. It sounds a bit alarmist don't you think?

1: I don’t think so. The science on global warming has been ongoing for decades and it has all pointed to humans causing the warming that we're seeing now due to the burning of fossil fuels. Plus, scientists accurately predicted the more extreme weather events such as the wildfires, heat waves, stronger and more frequent hurricanes, etc [13]. In my opinion, if you look at all the predictions that were made by the scientific community decades ago, it is unfolding just as prognosticated.

2: I'm not so sure about the science; it seems like it's an agenda to control us through increased taxes, limiting economic growth, etc. The climate has been changing naturally throughout history so there's really no need to worry that it's changing now.

1: So all the world's scientists are bought and paid for by whom exactly in order to perpetuate these agendas? Furthermore, the warming that we're seeing now is far from natural. Yes, the climate has fluctuated naturally over time, but we can reconstruct the climate for thousands of years into the past and what we're witnessing now is not normal. There is a significant deviation from the norm in C02 concentration since the industrial revolution, which is the primary driver of global temperature rise. There are of course other reasons, but this is the most significant and directly caused by us since CO2 is a known greenhouse gas released by the combustion of fossil fuels.

2: They're all bought by the elites like Bill Gates who want to control us. It's really no different than what's going on with the COVID vaccines. Again, the scientific community is pushing this alarmist agenda in order to exert control over us. What evidence do you have that this isn't the case? I'm sure that this “significant deviation” was put there by the scientific community to further their own agenda.

1: You do realize how remarkably unlikely this scenario is right? The level of coordination it would take to orchestrate a global conspiracy of this magnitude is basically impossible. Also, scientists are people just like you and I. Do you really think that they are all a part of this global cabal of conspirators whose sole purpose is to fake data surrounding global warming in order to help “the elites” control you? Regarding evidence, again, we have decades of scientific evidence that all points to human activity causing the aberrant rise in temperatures that we're now witnessing. You can start learning more about anthropogenic global warming on NASA's website. Further, this isn't how the burden of proof works. You're the one claiming that there's some sort of conspiracy surrounding global warming, not me. Therefore, you really should be the one providing evidence to support your position.

2: You say it's impossible, but there have been other conspiracies in the past that turned out to be true, so this could easily be true as well. Anyone can be bought; scientists are no different in this regard. The “evidence” that you provide from NASA is probably all faked since they're a Government agency and can't be trusted. Here are some YouTube videos about how global warming is nothing but a hoax and I would encourage you to do your own research.

1: I agree that there have been real conspiracies in the past and there may be some happening at this very moment, but they all eventually come to light through traditional journalistic channels. Also, there have been significantly more conspiracy theories that have existed throughout history that were completely false because there was no evidence to support them than real conspiracies. In order for a conspiracy theory to mature beyond speculation into a real conspiracy, you need evidence. If you cannot provide credible evidence in support, then you have nothing more than a story that shouldn't be taken seriously. What's more, the evidence must be credible. You cannot use some random YouTube video that hasn't undergone a vetting process for credibility. YouTube is full of fake experts who sound like they know what they're talking about, but in reality, they are completely misrepresenting the science or blatantly lying to suit their narrative. Since evidence from NASA isn't good enough, I have a feeling that no amount of evidence will ever be sufficient. What evidence would make you change your mind?

2: Yea, but who's to say that these journalists aren't in on it as well in order to keep it covered up. These “fake experts” that you're referring to are telling the truth and are the true experts while all the real “experts” that you're referring to are definitely in on the conspiracy. Let's say you were right and we're causing the planet to warm, only 97% of the scientists agree anyway, so to say that global warming is proven is simply not true. In order for me to change my mind I would have to be a part of these experiments myself since the scientific community can't be trusted.

Explanation: No amount of evidence is good enough for Person 2 as the goal posts are constantly moved. All the scientific evidence available showing that humans are causing global warming isn't credible since it's all part of some conspiracy to control us by “the elites” like Bill Gates*. Governments, scientists, and even investigative journalists are all playing a role in this grand conspiracy.

What's interesting, as this happens with most individuals who embrace conspiracy theories, is that Person 2's threshold for evidence is set to impossible standards for Person 1, but the bar is set very low for evidence that supports their position. Cherry picked YouTube videos in this instance. Further, at one point, Person 2 hints at a conspiracy surrounding the COVID-19 vaccines, which is expected as most conspiracy theorists embrace more than one at a given time.

Person 2 also commits the single cause fallacy by asserting that the climate has always changed naturally in the past, so the changing climate now must be natural and therefore nothing to worry about. Moreover, there is an appeal to authority fallacy when Person 2 references YouTube “experts” as “telling the truth” (i.e., these people are correct because they have identified themselves as authorities on the topic), while the experts from the scientific community are lying and a part of the conspiracy. He/she also commits a straw man fallacy when he/she states that global warming is not proven because only 97% of the scientists agree. Person 1 never said that it was “proven,” but merely referenced the volumes of science all pointing to the singular conclusion that we're warming the planet. Moreover, science doesn't actually prove anything, that's reserved for deductive logic and mathematics only, while scientific arguments are inductive. However, this isn't an excuse for dismissing science or downplaying that we can be very certain about anthropogenic global warming.

*Bill Gates is often used as a scapegoat for a variety of conspiracy theories. What's humorous about this is the man has devoted a significant portion of his wealth to addressing global problems to try and make the world a better place. He is a philanthropist, not some evil villain trying to control the world.

Conclusion

As always, if you find yourself confronted with this fallacy in everyday discourse, it is important to remember that it renders the argument bad and should be rejected. What is more, if you find yourself using this fallacy within one of your own arguments, as an individual who ascribes to the ideology of Critical Thinking, you must replace it with a good argument. There are a number of pressing issues currently threatening to upend our way of life this century. Closing out this pandemic and addressing global warming are two of the more prominent ones, but there are many others. These problems are challenging enough without the added complication of false information and flawed arguments. Part of addressing these problems is ensuring that we collectively push back against the nonsense. We may not all be climate scientists, epidemiologists, engineers, etc., but we all can partake in correcting false information when we come across it. Complacency is no longer an option. The Earth and our way of life are at stake.