That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.(Christopher Hitchens) Do you Agree?

by omer9412 (student)

International Baccalaureate Theory of Knowledge

Adam McSweeney

Per. 7

10/17/12

000315

W.C.1,519

“That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.”(Christopher Hitchens) Do you Agree?

To understand the statement “That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence”, one must first consider the assumptions made by Christopher Hitchens. Should all assertions made without evidence be dismissed immediately and without any further consideration? While seemingly straightforward, we tend to take the meaning of “evidence” for granted. Upon careful consideration, we are able to realize that while evidence is indeed much more subjective. This uncertainty over what constitutes “evidence” is almost a prerequisite to determining which particular assertions can be dismissed, and indeed which particular assertions should be dismissed.

While evidence can be accepted as being any particular event or phenomenon that indicates a particular conclusion, evidence becomes subjective depending on particular context. For me, I am much more willing to accept evidence that is well argued, even if it is not necessarily true. As new theories are put forward, their acceptance is largely contingent upon the quality of evidence. However, the use of evidence as the litmus test for theories validity is not entirely accurate, as many theories one thought to be incorrect have been proven, and vice versa. Thus, while I agree with Christopher Hitchens insofar as while evidence certainly makes the dismissal of unsubstantiated theories and ideas possible, the subjectivity of evidence means that these “unsubstantiated assertions” are not always incorrect, and the assumption that unsubstantiated need to be dismissed is fundamentally flawed.

One particular strength of the widespread use of evidence based theories in the scientific community is that it creates a standard that must be met for a particular theory to be validated. Theories like Einstein’s theory of relativity have been proven and supported by numerous studies and research. Thus, anyone who wanted to disprove Einstein’s theory would need to not only disprove the theory itself, but also determine why all of the supporting research is incorrect. While the subjectivity of evidence may affect its perception, and thus the conclusion drawn, simply having some form of logical grounding makes that particular claim much more reliable. Conversely, an assertion with no grounding in previous research is much less reliable. In the same way a researcher attempting to disprove Einstein would need to acquire massive amounts of evidence to support his claim, the opposite is true of baseless assertions. A simple claim that “global warming is a hoax” is literally as valid as the claim “global warming is not a hoax”. Presentation of evidence to support either of these assertions would have to be met by equal evidentiary claims, thus I agree with Christopher Hitchens that assertions can be dismissed with like responses, unless supported by evidence.

Throughout history, there have been examples where the conclusion following the dismissal of assertions has proven to be incorrect. On May 4th, 1886, the bombing of a peaceful labor protest incited a violent 8 hour strike. This incident would come to be known as the Haymarket Square riot. [1]Eight suspected anarchists were put on trial for the bombing and all received guilty verdicts in what would become one of the most infamous trials in American history. For years, it was held that all of the defendants had been convicted without evidence.[2] Among supporters of the labor movement in the United ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

Throughout history, there have been examples where the conclusion following the dismissal of assertions has proven to be incorrect. On May 4th, 1886, the bombing of a peaceful labor protest incited a violent 8 hour strike. This incident would come to be known as the Haymarket Square riot. [1]Eight suspected anarchists were put on trial for the bombing and all received guilty verdicts in what would become one of the most infamous trials in American history. For years, it was held that all of the defendants had been convicted without evidence.[2] Among supporters of the labor movement in the United States and abroad and others, the trial was widely believed to have been unfair, and even a serious “miscarriage of justice”, which ultimately culminated in the pardoning of the convicted men by the Governor of Illinois in 1893[3]. Because many were so quick to condemn the ruling, few actually took the time to investigate the trial itself, and so there was very little evidence that actually proved the men innocent. Relying instead on a more visceral reaction, the pardoning of the men was ultimately grounded in little more than guilt over police brutality related to the incident. However, careful examination of all mainstream accounts of the trial say the trial dragged on for 6 weeks, with the prosecution introducing absolutely no evidence. The trial itself was a fairly black and white issue, so why did it take court 6 weeks to convict the defendants? Further examination of this oddity by Professor Timothy Messer-Kruse yielded the actual transcripts of the trial, which indicated that the prosecution team did indeed have substantial evidence against the defendants. However, within 5 minutes of being published on Wikipedia, the revisions were taken down, with the editors citing a “lack of verifiability”. In this case, despite the fact that both sides had “evidence” supporting their beliefs, the acceptance of the more mainstream view goes to show the subjectivity of evidence. While Professor Messer-Kruse cited some of the only first-hand evidence available, Wikipedia refused to acknowledge his findings because they did not to conform to the evidence cited by every other primary source on the topic. The irony of this is the fact that all of the primary sources cite a lack of evidence as the only evidence necessary to pardon the defendants. While it is true both of these claims are supported by evidence, that is they both support their conclusions, the evidence presented by Messer-Kruse is much more direct and specific. Yet the circumstances surrounding the trial created the established viewpoint that the convictions were the result of a “witch hunt”. This explanation generates a more visceral reaction whenever we learn about the Haymarket riots, which is why it is generally accepted as being true. Because critics of the trial attempted to dismiss the “evidence less trial” with no evidence themselves, the fundamental truth of the matter has been re-written. Thus, the dismissal of assertions that lack evidence clearly requires more than simply another assertion.

In his life time, Christopher Hitchens was a rabid critic of organized religion. In fact, the phrase “That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence” is a quote from his book God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. The context of this statement endows it with a particular urgency insofar as assertions that are without evidence, should, in fact be dismissed. However, this totalizing claim ignores the subjectivity of evidence which can vastly impact the need to dismiss these assertions. In the world of art, the context of our situation completely influences our view of a piece of art, and the evidence they use to support it. Art is more or less marked by a subjective nature, which means that any opinion of art and it’s supporting reasoning is entirely tied to the context of the observer. The idea that your ideas of art should be disregarded because there is no substantive evidence behind them is completely contradictory to the abstract nature of art. This is especially true of people like me who do not have a particular palate for art, and therefore may not be able to defend their taste in art with anything other than “just because”, or other substantive reasons. I know for a fact my first impression of Antoni Gaudi’s architecture in Barcelona was that it was strange, gaudy, and ultimately a little ugly. My basis for this was, and still is, the bright colors and strange structural shapes that make his buildings look like something straight out of Alice and Wonderland. Yet to the critics who praise Gaudi, my “evidence” is only superficial, and ignores much of the religious significance of his work[4]. None the less, in such a subjective subject as art, it is virtually impossible to actually determine how to evaluate evidence. Because our perception of art is based on context, our evidence becomes opinions supported by a handful of subjective reasons. As a result, should my opinions on art be disregarded by a renowned art critic whose assertions are no better supported than mine? Because evidence can vary from situation to situation depending on context, dismissing evidence, or a lack of thereof, is infinitely subjective. What might be a well-supported claim backed by evidence to us might simply be nonsense to someone else with a different view point. Thus, I disagree with the assumption that all unwarranted assertions must be disregarded because determining the difference between an assertion and evidence is purely subjective.

In the most literal sense of his words, Christopher Hitchens was correct in saying that “that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence”. However, upon closer examination of not only the author’s intent behind the quote, as well as the inherent subjectivity behind the term “evidence”, I ultimately disagree with Christopher Hitchens. While Hitchens was literally speaking of rejecting organized religion, the assumptions posited by the author’s social viewpoints are fundamentally flawed and serve to enlarge the potency of his thoughts. The inherent difference between what “can be done” and what “should be done” ultimately make Hitchens’ position incorrect.

Bibliography

Smith, Carl.. The Dramas of Haymarket. Chicago Historical Society and Northwestern University.

Tremlett, Giles (11 July 2003). . The Guardian. UK.

Quoted in Stanley Turkel, Heroes of the American Reconstruction: Profiles of Sixteen Educators (McFarland, 2009) p. 121.

. Cityofchicago.org..

[1] . Cityofchicago.org..

[2] Smith, Carl.. The Dramas of Haymarket. Chicago Historical Society and Northwestern University.

[3] Quoted in Stanley Turkel, Heroes of the American Reconstruction: Profiles of Sixteen Educators (McFarland, 2009) p. 121.

[4] Tremlett, Giles (11 July 2003). . The Guardian. UK.