The painfully uninformed ‘there’s no evidence for that’ claim.

There are few things I’m certain of in life — but one thing I’m sure as hell of is that you won’t hear intelligent people make the claim that there is ‘no evidence’ for XY or Z.

I felt compelled to vent about this mentality because of how often I’ve heard people say it recently. Frankly it pisses me off because of how dumb it sounds.

The fact of the matter is that there being no evidence for something is more the exception to the rule than the rule itself. That is to say that it’s rare for a claim to have ZERO evidence applicable to it. One may go so far as to say that by definition any claim inherently has evidence for or against it, otherwise how could it be a claim in the first place?

Thus, it’s rarely a question of whether a claim has evidence or not but rather the degree to which there is — or is not—evidence.

Semantically, one may assert that there is ‘no evidence’ because there is legitimately no credible evidence, alas they would technically still be wrong as there is a clear difference between the two.

It seems to me that people are just so dogmatic that close-minded thinking is their default mode of reasoning… which, of course, is no way to reason.

The specific problem lies within the nature of such dogmatism. When this is your default mode, your response to any claim that challenges your preconceptions and beliefs is to shut them down before they enter the conversation — because you’re an insecure little baby.

It’s this lack of suspending your disbelief and being closed off to the possibility that you essentially know nothing about everything that gets people.

Put simply, people falsely make the assumption that they are already aware of ALL the evidence that exists (obviously very probable…); this is key.

It’s such a bazaar display of arrogance and incompetence ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

The amusing irony here is that when people make the no evidence claim, without realising it they are literally admitting that they have an insufficient understanding of the topic as anybody clued up and rationale would have reviewed the body of evidence from all angles and come to the conclusion that their current position is the least-wrong, even when taking into account all the counter-evidence.

Likewise, anybody with a shred of intellect would admit they don’t know the topic inside out if that’s the case, as there’s no shame in such an admission only shame in charlatanism.

So the next time somebody makes a claim that triggers you like a millennial being told they’re an entitled piece of shit that needs to take responsibility for their life, take a deep breath, pause, suspend your disbelief and sincerely ask them what evidence they have to validate their position.

Who knows, you might just learn something.

Similarly, when somebody pulls the no evidence fuckery on a claim you make, take a deep breath, pause and wholeheartedly ask that baboon of a being how in gods name they escaped the zoo.