Shifting the Burden of Proof

The particular form of argument in question follows these lines:
Person A makes a statement they know to be false concerning person B. This, in turn, forces a denial from person B. From there person B is associated with this untruth. But B may decide not to indulge these untruths, thereby remaining tarred with these accusations.

For example “Now, I’m not saying B stole a car, but I do notice they are not denying it…” So we see two truths – we know a car was stolen, as this is presumably self-evident. We also know person B exists. Until this point they were not necessarily linked, but now they are becoming inextricable. No matter what they do, the hitherto good name of person B is besmirched by association.

Equally, B will have difficulty forcing a retraction because this logic is insidious. It always begins with a statement to say that what follows may not be true. It really is a schoolyard tactic, not much more advanced in terms of sophisticated dialectics than saying “I know you are,but what am I?” But this and similar forms of syllogistic reasoning are truly on the rise in combative opinion-based media, never mind the highest diplomatic circles.

US Justification for Iraq War

Originally the war had to be fought when it was announced that Saddam has weapons that could hit Britain in 45 minutes. Well, lots of people thought this a little dubious, to say the least. And so the logic of the western leaders went, “Well, Saddam, we hear you have weapons and unless you prove you don’t have any, then you must have some”. The burden of proof had shifted to someone whose best efforts to prove he didn’t have something turned out not to be good enough.

But this didn’t suffice, Iraq had to be linked with September the eleventh. Although the fabricated link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda has since been acknowledged as a falsehood, this acknowledgement has always been qualified by caveats. These caveats have created doubt in the audience as to the veracity of the new claims of there being no link.

Over to the masters of fallacious suggestion and association:
Fallacious suggestions, by Dick Cheney, of links between Iraq and terrorism are too numerous to catalogue.

George Bush, however, was a master of the diplomatically embarrassing and conceptually ill-conceived sound-bite, “No, we’ve had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th… al-Zarqawi, an al-Qaida operative, was in Baghdad. He’s the guy that ordered the killing of a U.S. diplomat. … There’s no question that Saddam Hussein had al-Qaida ties.”

Glenn Beck

This form of disputation is Beck’s stock in trade. He recently noted that social justice (public healthcare etc – y’know, standard stuff in the developed world) was a primary concern of a prominent American Nazi sympathiser, Fritz Julius Kuhn. Social justice he said was therefore a concern of nazis and communists. And so his logic ran, if anyone asks you about social justice they must be evil, so give them a wide berth. Of course, this logic neglects to mention its many philanthropic adherents, but then that’s the point. This particular case is an example of guilt by association as an ad hominem fallacy.

A recent viral campaign online subverted this form of discourse against its greatest exponent. Glenn Beck was linked to, NOT accused of, horrific acts of depravity. The effort was made to shift the burden of proof to Beck himself. Of course, the prank failed due to the extreme nature of the crime he was associated with being ultimately incredible.

But this method of coercion is more effective where there is some duress, either people are scared, already have some similar suspicions that can be played on, or simply feel the suggestion is plausible.

How this technique works on a wider scale

Basically anyone makes a claim. A sympathetic media covers this, while loudly admonishing those of opposing views for not engaging with these freshly fabricated claims. In time other media outlets are dragged into covering the story, at which point the truth about the matter is truly lost. Read about it in more depth, and in relation to an actual incident here.

In other words it is creating and winning an argument in one fell swoop by shifting the burden/onus of proof.

Bibliography
Glenn Beck falls foul of internet meme mimicking his logic
The concept of fallacy

Original content created by: The Inquisition

France's Most Wanted, Komar and Melamid, 1995

First of all let’s be clear on this – The Inquisition is no luddite, and has all of the credentials to prove it; a TV that projects moving images in colour (using up-to-the-minute cathode-ray technology – wow sci-fi!), a mobile phone that can both display text messages and take calls and a digital watch with a calculator face. Pretty swish inventory, I know.

More questions than answers (for now)

To be honest, you’d have to imagine the future of reading and publishing is somewhere between Amazon’s Kindle and Apple’s iPad. But in the short term the iPad will probably win out, for its looks alone. But would you really read a whole book on it? That’s where Kindle’s digital ink comes in, of course. But how terrible would a coffee-table art book look?

But when all is said and done, being able to carry an extensive (and scrupulously backed-up) library, which you own, is hugely enticing. However anyone who is often to be found in Public libraries and second-hand book shops must wonder; where does that leave us? Publishing rights are closely guarded and this new frontier will be no exception.

More worryingly

In today’s Sunday Times Bryan Appleyard raises a deeply disquieting point; publishers can browse how readers interact with their texts on the iPad. It is not a huge leap of logic to realise that this will lead to greater control over what is published and what is commissioned by marketing departments. After all, publishing is an industry.

Design by committee or democratic voting rarely results in the most worthy entrant winning. The winner in a popularity contest is, in essence, the most intrinsically average. This is not progress.

Komar and Melamid’s Art

The point made in the previous paragraph is hardly the most eye-opening statement to every make it to the hallowed pages of The Inquisition, but it describes a troubling truth. And it is one that was very skillfully explored in the early days of the web by two progressive Rusian emigre artists- Komar and Melamid.

The duo setup online surveys to test respondents’ tastes in visual art and digitally composed images from the answers received. The results are the most insipid pieces you could set your eyes upon. The response from the art world was incensed. But the artists managed to explore more than art; they showed how loathe the general public is to exercise individuality and the very cornerstones of democratic freedom. They showed that when given the choice the most popular choice is mediocrity – just look at the popularity of those god-awful democratic, viewer-votes, phone in shows that are always on the Inquisition’s gloriously expansive 16-inch colour screen.

Bibliography
New gizmos such as the iPad Hope to Turn our Reading Habits on their Head – And Even Save the Written Word. But Can They?, Bryan Appleyard, Sunday Times Culture Magazine, Sunday 25th April 2010
Painting by Numbers, Margaret Wertheim, World Art, Issue #2 1996
Komar and Melamid

Original content created by: The Inquisition