Changing the evidence standard so nothing ever qualifies
Climate scientists show temperature records. “That’s just weather patterns.”
They show decades of data. “Could be natural cycles.”
They demonstrate the mechanism linking CO2 to warming. “Correlation isn’t causation.”
They explain why the mechanism proves causation. “But climate models have been wrong before.”
They show the models have gotten more accurate. “You still can’t predict next week’s weather.”
Notice what’s happening.
Every time evidence gets provided, the objection changes. The person isn’t evaluating evidence. They’re generating new reasons to dismiss it. The criteria for acceptable proof keeps shifting so that no evidence could ever actually qualify. That’s not skepticism. That’s an unfalsifiable position wearing skepticism as a costume.
This is moving the goalposts.
Somebody provides what’s asked for, and instead of acknowledging it, the person invents a new requirement. The new requirement gets met, and another new requirement appears. The standard is whatever the evidence hasn’t yet reached, and it will continue to be whatever the evidence hasn’t yet reached, because it’s designed to.
Here’s how you tell the difference between moving goalposts and genuinely evaluating evidence.
Ask upfront what would change the person’s mind. A genuine skeptic can answer that question. They can tell you what evidence, if it existed, would shift their position. Somebody moving goalposts either can’t answer or keeps changing the answer. If they can’t pre-commit to a standard, there isn’t really a standard. There’s just an ongoing search for reasons to stay where they already were.
This played out visibly with claims about the 2020 election.
Courts reviewed more than sixty cases challenging the election results, including cases heard by judges appointed by the losing candidate. Each time they ruled against the fraud claims, a new objection emerged. The courts were biased. The judges were compromised. The real evidence was elsewhere. Every obstacle cleared produced a new obstacle. At some point the honest question becomes what would actually satisfy the objection. If the answer keeps changing, or if no answer exists, the evaluation process was never honest to begin with.
Moving the goalposts often feels like rigor from the inside.
The person doing it believes they’re demanding high standards. They’re not accepting weak evidence. But there’s a difference between appropriate skepticism – which has a clear standard that evidence either meets or doesn’t – and perpetual skepticism, where the standard adjusts to keep the preferred conclusion safe. Real rigor commits to what would count as proof. Fake rigor never does, because committing would create the possibility of having to update.
This fallacy is particularly common around beliefs tied to identity.
When a belief is load-bearing for how somebody sees themselves or their group, evidence against it isn’t just information. It’s a threat. The response is to keep moving the line so the threat never quite lands. Cognitive dissonance from Essay 7 explains why this feels necessary. The belief has to be protected, and moving the goalposts is how the protection happens in real time.
A useful self-check is almost painfully simple.
When somebody provides evidence you asked for, is your first instinct to evaluate it fairly, or to look for a new reason to dismiss it? If it’s the second one, you’re moving the goalposts on yourself. The feeling is that you’re being careful. The actual behavior is that you’re being uncommittable.
Commit to a standard.
Then hold yourself to it when the evidence shows up, even if you don’t like where it lands.
That’s what rigor actually looks like.