Can you outsmart the fallacy that started a witch hunt? - Elizabeth Cox
Ah, a witch hunt.
Humans are tireless
in their pursuit of reason.
"It’s 1950.
Following threats from the communist
governments of the Soviet Union and China,
anti-communist sentiment in
the United States is at an all-time high.
Senator Joseph McCarthy claims
he has a list of 205 communists in the US
who are influencing government policy."
Didn’t I just change the channel?
Ah, I see. It’s a different witch hunt.
"The senate forms a committee
to investigate McCarthy’s claims.
McCarthy names his first case:
against prominent lawyer, judge,
and activist Dorothy Kenyon.
He accuses her of membership to 28
organizations that are communist fronts.
Newspapers around the country
rush to her defense,
pointing out her vocally
anti-communist record.
The senate committee schedules
a hearing anyway,
and she has just five days to prepare."
This is too much.
If the government won’t be
a voice of reason, I’ll have to.
That’s better. I’m surprised you good legislators have agreed to move this hearing forward. You’re falling prey to a type of argument from ignorance: assuming that a claim is true because it hasn’t been proven false. The claim being Senator McCarthy’s accusations against Judge Kenyon, for which he provided no legitimate evidence. Is that right? I thought so. Some of the so-called communist organizations he accused her of joining don’t even exist. To assume a claim is true because it hasn’t been proven false ignores many other possibilities: that it hasn’t been proven false yet, that it can’t be proven true or false, or that it isn’t completely true or completely false, to name a few. This leads to a handy rule of thumb: the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. In other words, you make the claim, you supply the proof. If someone told you aliens exist, would you head off to find proof that they don’t exist? Of course not. You’d tell that person to show you the UFO. The same applies when someone makes a claim that contradicts an established consensus. So when all the available evidence suggests that humans are causing an increase in global temperatures, the burden of proof has been fulfilled— if you disagree, it becomes your responsibility to prove otherwise. Right?
Ah, I’ve gotten ahead of myself. You’ll see what I mean soon enough. Anyway, your legal system supposedly recognizes this rule— so what are you all doing here?
"It’s July 17th, 1950, and the senate subcommittee has officially dismissed all charges against Kenyon." As they should! "It’s 1954, and the senate has formally disciplined McCarthy." Took them long enough! "He will serve out the rest of his term, but will never again be elected to a public office. Because of his widespread anti-communist influence, hundreds of people have been incarcerated, and thousands have lost their jobs."
Ah! Look what the communists did!
That’s better. I’m surprised you good legislators have agreed to move this hearing forward. You’re falling prey to a type of argument from ignorance: assuming that a claim is true because it hasn’t been proven false. The claim being Senator McCarthy’s accusations against Judge Kenyon, for which he provided no legitimate evidence. Is that right? I thought so. Some of the so-called communist organizations he accused her of joining don’t even exist. To assume a claim is true because it hasn’t been proven false ignores many other possibilities: that it hasn’t been proven false yet, that it can’t be proven true or false, or that it isn’t completely true or completely false, to name a few. This leads to a handy rule of thumb: the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. In other words, you make the claim, you supply the proof. If someone told you aliens exist, would you head off to find proof that they don’t exist? Of course not. You’d tell that person to show you the UFO. The same applies when someone makes a claim that contradicts an established consensus. So when all the available evidence suggests that humans are causing an increase in global temperatures, the burden of proof has been fulfilled— if you disagree, it becomes your responsibility to prove otherwise. Right?
Ah, I’ve gotten ahead of myself. You’ll see what I mean soon enough. Anyway, your legal system supposedly recognizes this rule— so what are you all doing here?
"It’s July 17th, 1950, and the senate subcommittee has officially dismissed all charges against Kenyon." As they should! "It’s 1954, and the senate has formally disciplined McCarthy." Took them long enough! "He will serve out the rest of his term, but will never again be elected to a public office. Because of his widespread anti-communist influence, hundreds of people have been incarcerated, and thousands have lost their jobs."
Ah! Look what the communists did!
