Schrödinger's evidence

In an argument, when one refuses to make a simple search for evidence of their claim; however, they demand that the opposition does so. This creates a paradoxical position in which their belief is true and, when confronted with facts, either remains true or is discovered to be false.

In the event that it is discovered to be false, a second paradox often occurs in which the claim remains true by way of continuing to state it despite the evidence.

"Nobody has proven me wrong yet. Give me a source, I admit defeat. Don't, I stay right! Of course, I can obviously google for myself... but I have Schrödinger's evidence on my side!"

by WEGWEHQWE#HWRE July 22, 2022

Proof by lack of evidence

The proof by lack of evidence fallacy is claiming something is true simply because nobody has yet given any evidence to the contrary.

Torturer: You are a heretic! You can't prove that you aren't one, so you are a heratic. Confess, or we will stretch your body out until you are a foot taller.

Accused: Ha, you did it - you committed the proof by lack of evidence fallacy!

Torturer: That's enough out of you. Brutus, give the wheel another turn.

by DonutLoverr May 28, 2024

Theory of Constructed Evidence

The recognition that evidence is never neutral; it is always interpreted through a lens. A strand of hair is just a biological filament until a detective's theory of the crime constructs it as "evidence of the suspect's presence." A statistical correlation is just a number until an economist's model constructs it as "evidence for market manipulation." The theory comes first and dictates what counts as evidence and what that evidence means.

Example: "In the conspiracy forum, the same government press release was constructed as 'evidence of a cover-up' (because they'd admit that if it were true?) and as 'evidence of their brazen transparency' (to throw us off!). The Theory of Constructed Evidence shows the evidence itself was passive; the opposing theories did all the work."

by Dumu The Void January 30, 2026

Custom-Made Evidence Theory

The pinnacle of evidentiary corruption, where evidence is tailor-made to fit the precise rhetorical, legal, or political needs of a specific moment or opponent. It combines fabrication, manipulation, and molding into a bespoke service. The evidence is crafted to exploit a known weakness in an opponent's argument, to appeal to a specific audience's biases, or to meet the exact technical requirements of a flawed but powerful process (like a rigged legal system).

Custom-Made Evidence Theory Example: In a frivolous but dangerous lawsuit, a corporation doesn't just find a hired-gun expert. It commissions a custom-made scientific study that uses bizarre, hyper-specific parameters that only its own product can meet, "proving" safety. The evidence is useless to real science, but it's perfectly engineered to create just enough procedural doubt to win in court or in the press, fitting the situation like a lockpick fits a specific tumbler.

by Abzugal Nammugal Enkigal February 6, 2026

Theory of Fabricated Evidence

This theory posits that in high-stakes political, legal, or corporate conflicts, actors don't just twist existing facts—they invent them wholesale. Fabrication is the act of creating a "smoking gun" document, a false witness, or forged data where none existed to decisively win a debate, convict an enemy, or justify an action. It's evidence as a theatrical prop, built from scratch in a backroom to serve a script written in advance.

Theory of Fabricated Evidence Example: The infamous "Yellowcake Uranium" documents used to justify the Iraq War were a classic case of Fabricated Evidence. Intelligence was forged to create the definitive "proof" of a threat that did not exist. The fabrication wasn't a byproduct; it was the central piece of stagecraft designed to trigger a predetermined geopolitical outcome.

by Abzugal Nammugal Enkigal February 6, 2026

Hard Problem of Evidence

The dilemma that all evidence is interpreted through pre-existing frameworks (theories, biases, cultural narratives). There is no such thing as a "brute fact." A piece of data only becomes evidence for or against something within a specific story about how the world works. Changing someone's mind therefore requires not just new facts, but a change in their entire interpretive framework—a much harder task.

Example: Presenting vaccine efficacy data to an anti-vaxxer. The numbers are dismissed as fabricated by Big Pharma. The Hard Problem of Evidence is that the evidence is not seen as neutral. It is processed through a framework where institutional authority is inherently distrusted. New evidence strengthens the framework ("See, they're pushing harder!"), rather than challenging it. The battle is over frameworks, not facts.

by Dumuabzu February 8, 2026

Move the Evidencepost

The act of changing the criteria for what counts as valid evidence after your opponent has already met the previous criteria, ensuring that you never have to concede a point. This debate tactic is beloved by conspiracy theorists, bad-faith arguers, and people who would rather perform mental gymnastics than admit they might be wrong. Moving the evidencepost is like playing a game where you get to redefine the rules after every move, guaranteeing you never lose—and also guaranteeing that no one wants to play with you anymore. The only way to win against someone who moves the evidencepost is to stop playing, which is also the only way to preserve your sanity.

Move the Evidencepost Example: "She provided a peer-reviewed study. He moved the evidencepost, saying peer review was a liberal conspiracy. She provided government data. He said the government lies. She provided photographic evidence. He said photos could be photoshopped. She asked what he would accept. He said 'personal experience.' She realized the evidencepost had moved to a dimension she couldn't reach and ended the conversation. He declared victory."

by Abzugal Nammugal Enkigal February 15, 2026