More attention should be paid to this error, but not many people notice it, so it goes unchallenged.

“Proof by assertion” is my coined phrase for those statements made by anyone who thinks that something is proven simply because they have asserted it.

Some of these people even expect you to believe what they say, simply because they have said it. It occurs regularly in many discussions, usually by dogmatic and assertive people. I have witnessed it for decades.

Dogmatic assertion and “proof by assertion” are spoiling proper debate.

Examples from public life

A notable and significant example in public life is the claim that a person has brought a business, a political party, the church, or whatever, into disrepute.  It is often asserted and taken as read but rarely proved.  Who decides?  It is usually some significant person claiming that an individual employee has brought the organisation into disrepute and immediately the individual is put on the defensive. When was the public consulted to ascertain that the accused person did bring the organisation into disrepute? Political party leaders such as David Cameron and Nigel Farage have dismissed candidates from their respective Parties online without due process because in their opinion the candidate’s views had brought their Party into disrepute. These were “proof by assertion”. Does it apply the other way round? Has the UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer brought the Labour Party into disrepute?  Rosie Duffield MP thinks so and has resigned from the Party, her resignation letter claiming: “I am so ashamed of what you and your inner circle have done to tarnish and humiliate our once proud party.” Has the Foreign Secretary David Lammy done so in his handing over the Chagos Islands to Mauritius?  If a person is important enough or has sufficient supporters to speak on their behalf, they may survive a “proof by assertion” charge, but if one is a lowly Party member one may not survive the unilateral assertion that they have brought the Party into disrepute.

Similarly with other organisations.  A humble critic will be demonized and gossip circulated that they are a trouble-maker, to be believed and adopted on the principle of “proof by assertion”. Whistle blowers are often demonised with mere assertions. It is so pervasive that people rarely notice what is happening. They are so familiar with gossip and the assertion of gossipers that they have come to accept it. Very few people will “reserve judgment” until they hear the whole story.

The claim that such and such an opinion or statement is antisemitic, islamophobic, sexist, etc. assumes too much.  Frequently they are assertions expecting acceptance, even endorsement – the proof is my assertion. There are not even agreed definitions of these terms, a process of obfuscation begun long ago with the acceptance of homophobia as a term to put down those who are opposed to homosexuality.

The current debate on two-tier policing and two-tier justice is a symptom of the same issue. Wikipedia asserts that one is “a far-right conspiracy theory” and ChatGPT informs us that two-tier justice is “a myth that some people use”. We are expected to believe these assertions. The proof is my authoritative assertion – really?

Examples in your personal experience

You will have encountered many examples personally but you may not have noticed them because they are so common. You can detect this sort of behaviour when you witness someone being challenged. There are some people who welcome challenge and correction, but those who do not like it are usually dogmatic people who expect you to believe them. However, why should you believe their “proof by assertion” in the absence of evidence?

Statements are regulary given and definitions created that we are expected to believe as self-evidently true – “proof by assertion”. It is so often experienced that it is rarely identified because it seems normal to conduct discussion and debate in this manner.

You may have experienced another way of shutting down any challenge to assertion. This is to claim that one has been offended. This is becoming commoner ever since the Macpherson Report redefined offence in subjective terms instead of objective ones, so that charges of offence have become a stick with which to beat people. This re-frames any discussion, drawing attention away from the assertion being challenged to the subject of offence, which then gives an excuse not to address the assertion being challenged because one is offended. What if the offence is mutual? What if your claiming to be offended offends me when I mean no offence? Do you expect me to believe you? Is this not “proof by assertion”? You may well be offended but what do you expect me to do? This shows the confusion created by “proof by assertion” practitioners.

So much of the inability to engage in proper discussion arises from disregard for truth. Some public commentators expect politicians to tell lies. This low expectation is one of the many results from the loss of Christian teaching in our society. Sadly, discussion and debate between Christians often witness the same “proof by assertion”.

Social media is drawing attention to the written opinions of the general public, and forcing debate about the quality of discussion. My belief is that it will improve, but it will take time. When it does improve, it will hopefully escalate as more and more examples of good discussion are witnessed.

I read recently that individual freedom is “freedom to live out a psychological identity… in order for the individual to be truly free, his environment must be one that… affirms and celebrates his self-expression.” Why? Prove it. This is simply “proof by assertion”, or what others might call dogmatic opinion. Am I not free simply because someone else will not celebrate my self-expression of my Christian beliefs? Or, vice versa? Jesus Christ has made me free whatever anyone else thinks. Many freed Christians have lived in persecuting environments that do not affirm their self-expression. Jesus said: “If the Son of God shall make you free, you shall be free indeed” John 8:36.

Jesus shows us the way forward: “Every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment” Mat 12:36.

Belief is central to the Christian faith and Christians should know more about it. We need evidence for belief and until then one needs to reserve judgment.

Links:

19 Oct 2024: today’s example of taking offence being weaponised [at 22:06 hrs].

25 Oct 2024: today’s example, of “not in the public interest”; when was the public consulted?

12 Nov 2024: today’s example of proof by assertion is Jacob Rees-Mogg’s assertion that if a bishop has taken a pot-shot at the Archbishop of Canterbury then such a person cannot become Archbishop – “You cannot reward ambition” [19:54 hrs] – without offering any proof other than his own assertion that criticism arises from ambition. Further, Rees-Mogg asserted of Justin Welby: “he is a genuinely holy man” and then he contradicted himself by saying that Welby is not a saint. The theology of Roman Catholicism and Anglicanism needs to be reformed by reference to Scripture.

6 Jan 2025: Charles Moore and Jacob Rees-Mogg are almost using my terminology but at least the concept [at 20:52 hrs] is being identified. Moore thinks that safeguarding is becoming a religion in its own right which Mogg summarised as “the accusation is infallible” (a poor choice of words) through which one’s reputation is ruined. In effect, the assertion is treated as proof, bypassing the old adage that “one is innocent until proved guilty”.

20 May 2025: an example of “proof by assertion” occurs in the 31-month jailing of a woman, Lucy Connolly, for a tweet that is claimed to have incited to violence but we have no evidence that any violence took place in line with her tweet, which was removed within 4 hours, showing her change of heart. “Showing no remorse” and similar sentiments are assertions that are supposed to justify the harshness of punishment, the sentencing and conditions in UK prisons, including the extension of sentences when an innocent convicted person will not acknowledge their presumed and prejudiced guilt. “He shall have judgment without mercy who has shown no mercy” Jam 2:13. The US law on incitement requires a date and place but it seems that the UK needs only proof by assertion. The relevant and offending tweet said “set fire … for all I care”, which has been interpreted as incitement, which is proof by assertion. Rather, the words are ambiguous. It has been assumed that “set fire” is an imperative whereas “for all I care” suggests that it could mean “let them set fire” or “they may be set on fire” for all she cares. The following phrase “while you’re at it take …” can also be interpreted as an imperative, but tweets are succinct and often ambiguous and this second phrase is also ambiguous. It may be interpreted as her agreement with others acting thus, rather than telling them what to do. It appears that the court had to determine her meaning by examining other tweets, which is not good enough. It might be possible to demonstrate that her sentiments were wrong, but the charge is about incitement to violence, not whether she had malicious intent. The ambiguity in the tweet is demonstrated by the ‘need’ to demonstrate malice from other tweets. Proof by assertion has been applied to this ambiguity. Who noticed it? She said that she never meant to incite violence, but they did not believe her. Belief and unbelief are personal judgments, which are inadequate in criminal cases. The judges said that “her version of events” did not justify reducing the sentence. Why did they not believe her? Why not keep to the offending tweet? Apparently she pled guilty to inciting racial hatred after additional racist messages were found on her phone. In other words, other evidence is needed to ‘interpret’ the tweet, but those reading the tweet online did not have this available. Deplorable as it is to incite racial hatred, the charge is inciting to violence which needs to be proven from the tweet, which cannot be done. However, it might be enough for those who believe assertions are enough proof and who are prepared to determine an ambiguity by an unproven assertion. “For he shall have judgment without mercy who has shown no mercy” Jam 2:13.

26 May 2025: now Donald Trump is concerned about the Lucy Connolly case.