By Sir Geo
In debates, discussions, and arguments, it's important to have clear criteria for evaluating whether an argument or evidence is convincing. However, sometimes people shift these criteria in a way that makes it impossible to meet them, even when valid points are made. This tactic is known as the moving the goalposts fallacy. This fallacy occurs when someone changes the criteria or standards for accepting an argument or evidence after they have already been met, making it difficult or impossible to satisfy the new demands.
The moving the goalposts fallacy happens when someone sets a specific criterion or condition that needs to be met for a point to be accepted, but when that condition is met, they change the criteria to something more difficult or unattainable. This tactic effectively prevents the opponent from ever being able to win the argument or prove their point, as the standards keep shifting.
The name of this fallacy comes from the metaphor of literally moving goalposts in a sport like football or soccer—if the goalposts are moved, it becomes much harder, if not impossible, to score a goal, no matter how skilled the player is. Similarly, in an argument, if the criteria for success are constantly changed, the person trying to meet those criteria is at a perpetual disadvantage.
To illustrate how the moving the goalposts fallacy works, consider the following example in a discussion about scientific evidence:
Person A: "Show me scientific evidence that climate change is real."
Person B: "Here are several peer-reviewed studies that demonstrate the reality of climate change."
Person A: "Well, those studies don't prove anything because they don't show that climate change is entirely caused by human activity."
In this scenario, Person A initially asks for scientific evidence that climate change is real. When Person B provides this evidence, Person A shifts the goalposts by demanding evidence that climate change is entirely caused by human activity, which is a different and more challenging standard. This shift makes it harder for Person B to satisfy Person A's demands, even though Person B has already met the original criterion.
The moving the goalposts fallacy can take several forms, depending on how the criteria are shifted. Some common variations include:
Escalating Demands: Continuously raising the standard of proof required to accept an argument, even after the original standard has been met. For example, "If evolution is real, show me a fossil record." After being shown the fossil record: "Well, show me an example of a species evolving into a completely different species."
Shifting Definitions: Changing the definition of key terms or concepts during the argument, making it impossible to meet the new criteria. For example, "Show me evidence of a miracle." After being presented with an example: "That doesn't count as a miracle because it could have a natural explanation."
Unattainable Criteria: Setting an impossibly high standard for evidence that cannot realistically be met. For example, "I'll only believe in climate change if you can prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt," which is an unrealistic standard given the inherent uncertainties in scientific research.
The moving the goalposts fallacy is problematic because it undermines honest and productive dialogue. When the criteria for accepting an argument are constantly shifted, it becomes impossible to reach a conclusion or agreement. This tactic effectively traps the discussion in an endless loop, where no amount of evidence or reasoning is ever sufficient.
This fallacy also discourages critical thinking and open-mindedness. Rather than genuinely engaging with the evidence or arguments presented, the person committing this fallacy is focused on avoiding conceding the point, regardless of the merits of the case. As a result, the conversation becomes unproductive, with one side perpetually shifting the standards to avoid admitting they might be wrong.
Furthermore, moving the goalposts can be frustrating and demoralizing for the person trying to present evidence or arguments in good faith. When their efforts to meet the demands of the other party are constantly dismissed or deemed insufficient, it creates a sense of futility and can lead to the breakdown of communication.
Avoiding the moving the goalposts fallacy requires clarity and consistency in how arguments and evidence are evaluated. Here are some strategies to avoid falling into this fallacy:
Set Clear Criteria: Before starting a debate or discussion, agree on clear, specific criteria for what would constitute sufficient evidence or a convincing argument. Stick to these criteria throughout the conversation.
Acknowledge When Criteria Are Met: If the other person provides evidence or arguments that meet the agreed-upon criteria, acknowledge this rather than shifting the goalposts. If you believe there are additional considerations, introduce them as new points rather than as changes to the original criteria.
Stay Consistent: Avoid changing the standards of proof or definitions in the middle of the discussion. Consistency in your criteria is key to maintaining a fair and productive dialogue.
Recognize Good Faith Efforts: If someone is making a genuine effort to meet the criteria you’ve set, recognize their effort and engage with the substance of their argument. This fosters a more constructive and respectful conversation.
Be Open to Revision: If new information or arguments genuinely warrant a change in the criteria, be transparent about this and explain why the revision is necessary. Ensure that the new criteria are reasonable and attainable.
The moving the goalposts fallacy is a deceptive tactic that disrupts productive discussion by constantly changing the criteria for success. By recognizing and avoiding this fallacy, we can ensure that our debates and discussions are fair, consistent, and focused on genuinely evaluating the merits of the arguments presented. Understanding this fallacy helps us engage in more meaningful and constructive dialogue, where ideas are judged based on clear and agreed-upon standards rather than on shifting and unattainable criteria.