Proofgoal

The elusive, often vaguely defined, piece of evidence that an arguer claims would settle the issue for them. It is presented as a reasonable target but is usually defined with such specificity or grandeur that it is practically unattainable, functioning more as a conversation-ender than a genuine objective.

Example: In a climate debate, someone says, “My proofgoal is a single, undeniable piece of evidence that 100% conclusively proves human activity is the sole cause of all warming, with zero margin for error or natural variation.” This “proofgoal” is a mythical, perfect piece of evidence whose impossibility is used to justify ongoing skepticism.

by Dumuabzu February 8, 2026

Proofbait

Proofbait, also Sourcebait, Evidencebait, Factbait, is a mix of proofpost and sciencebait that consists of demanding proof, sources, evidence, or facts not as a genuine request for information but as a bait tactic to provoke engagement, delay discussion, or derail argument. Proofbait is the rhetorical equivalent of "prove it" repeated endlessly, regardless of how much proof is provided. Each proof is met with a new demand—a different kind of proof, a more authoritative source, a more recent study, a more rigorous methodology. The goal is not to find truth but to exhaust the interlocutor, to make conversation so laborious that opponents give up. Proofbait is especially effective on platforms where appearing rational matters—the baiter looks like a reasonable skeptic, while the target exhausts themselves providing ever more evidence to someone who never intended to be convinced.

Example: "She provided a source for her claim. He proofbaited: 'That source is biased.' She provided a different source. 'That's too old.' Another source. 'That study has limitations.' Another. 'Can you find a meta-analysis?' After ten rounds, she realized the proof was never enough—proofbait had been the point. He wasn't seeking evidence; he was seeking exhaustion."

by Dumu The Void February 18, 2026

Proof Biases

Biases related to what counts as proof, how much proof is required, and who gets to demand proof from whom. Proof Biases include: demanding impossible standards of proof from marginalized groups; accepting weak proof from powerful institutions; treating absence of proof as proof of absence; requiring proof for some claims but not others; using "proof" as a gatekeeping concept to dismiss what threatens established views. Proof Biases are about power as much as epistemology—who has to prove, who gets to demand proof, whose proof counts.

Proof Biases "They demanded proof of systemic racism. When shown statistics, they demanded personal stories. When shown stories, they demanded experiments. When experiments aren't possible, they concluded it doesn't exist. That's Proof Bias—moving the goalposts because you don't want to see. Proof isn't neutral when some have to prove and others just get to assert."

by Dumu The Void March 1, 2026

Proof Metabiases

Second-order biases about proof—how we understand what counts as proof, how much proof is enough, and who gets to demand it. Proof Metabiases include: assuming that proof is possible in all domains; treating absence of proof as proof of absence; demanding impossible standards from some while accepting weak proof from others; using "proof" as a weapon rather than a standard; believing that proof settles things forever. Proof Metabiases are about the politics and psychology of proof—not just what proves what, but who gets to prove what to whom.

Proof Metabiases "He demands proof for her experience but accepts flimsy evidence for his views. That's Proof Metabias—applying different standards without noticing. Proof isn't neutral when some have to prove and others just get to assert. The metabias is thinking your proof demands are objective when they're actually strategic."

by Dumu The Void March 1, 2026

Proof Sophism

A sophisticated rhetorical tactic where one demands proof not to find truth, but to exhaust opponents and avoid engagement. Proof Sophism begins with reasonable requests—"source?" "evidence?"—but then relentlessly moves the goalposts. When a source is provided, it's dismissed as biased, outdated, or insufficient. When stronger evidence appears, the demand shifts to impossible standards: double-blind RCTs for historical claims, video evidence for events before cameras, personal testimony for statistical phenomena. The goal is not evidence but exhaustion—making the opponent chase an ever-receding horizon of proof until they give up. Proof Sophism weaponizes the very idea of proof, using the appearance of rigor to destroy the possibility of dialogue.

"She provided a study. 'That journal is biased,' he said. She found a meta-analysis. 'Too old.' She found a recent review. 'Not specific enough.' She found exactly what he asked for—and he demanded video evidence. Of a historical event. Proof Sophism: proof as infinite regress, evidence as exhaustion. He never wanted to know; he wanted her to quit."

by Dumu The Void March 8, 2026

Proof Bias

The rigid belief that only things that can be "proven" according to a narrow, often undefined, standard are real. It’s the intellectual sibling of Computational Bias, but focuses on the act of proving rather than the act of measuring. It creates a catch-22 where the proof demanded is only achievable within the skeptic's own framework. If you can't prove it to their satisfaction, in their language, it doesn't exist. It’s the ultimate tool for dismissing anything inconvenient.

Example: "Despite years of historical documentation, his Proof Bias made him claim the event never happened because we didn't have a video recording from the 1700s."

by Dumu The Void March 11, 2026

Proof Orthodoxy

The established, institutionalized set of beliefs about proof that dominate science, law, and public discourse—the often-unexamined assumptions about what counts as proof, how proof should be established, what standards are appropriate in different contexts, and how proof relates to certainty. Proof orthodoxy includes commitments: that scientific proof requires replication, that legal proof requires evidence beyond reasonable doubt, that mathematical proof requires deduction from axioms, that proof is objective and universal, that claims without proof can be dismissed, that some domains (religion, ethics) lack proof and therefore lack truth. Like all orthodoxies, it provides standards for establishing claims, but it functions as ideology—making particular conceptions of proof seem like the only conceptions, obscuring how proof standards vary across contexts and cultures, and delegitimizing ways of knowing that don't fit (experiential knowledge, revealed truth, embodied understanding). Proof orthodoxy determines what claims are considered "proven," what arguments are "demonstrated," and who counts as "rigorous" versus "unsupported."

Example: "He demanded proof for her experience of discrimination—as if her testimony couldn't count. Proof orthodoxy had made him believe that only certain kinds of evidence are real evidence."

by Dumu The Void March 17, 2026