Claims without evidence cannot be refuted by counter-evidence.

Evidence

In fact, however, in most cases it is already impossible in principle to provide the required counter-evidence. It is true that studies conducted according to careful scientific criteria regularly fail to find evidence of an efficacy of homeopathy that goes beyond the placebo effect. However, this does not prove that there could not be at least in principle some effect of homeopathy, and such studies are not at all suitable to exclude with absolute certainty such an effect of homeopathic remedies, which is usually not even precisely defined. In the case of conspiracy myths surrounding September 11, it is possible to disprove individual claims by demonstrating, for example, that hijacked airliners actually flew into the World Trade Center and caused structural damage and fires there. However, this will not prevent those who are convinced of a conspiracy from claiming that the buildings were nevertheless blown up or (if conclusive proof is presented that there could not have been a blow-up) that the U.S. government controlled the planes or at least ordered the hijacking. — Holm Gero Hümmler, Ulrike Schiesser, Fact and Prejudice, 765

Categorization

• XREF: The shifting-burden-of-proof argument echoes the Russell teapot and the general problem of unfalsifiability in Popper’s philosophy of science. — connects to: Disconfirming evidence rarely topples deeply held doctrines and worldviews. — Philip Mirowski, Never Let a Serious Crisis Go to Waste, 94; Politicians can disregard evidence openly when partisanship outweighs facts for their voters. — Lee McIntyre, Post-Truth, 80; Conspiracist beliefs cannot be corrected by contradictory evidence or argument. — Russell Muirhead and Nancy L. Rosenblum, A Lot of People Are Saying: The New…, 315

Related

• Conspiracist beliefs cannot be corrected by contradictory evidence or argument. (similarity 0.82)
• For conspiracy believers, the conspiracy is an axiom, not a conclusion (similarity 0.81)
• Unproven claims are slander or quackery regardless of disprovability. (similarity 0.81)
• Conspiracy theories are inherently unfalsifiable because believers dismiss counterevidence as a plot (similarity 0.81)
• The more sweeping a conspiracy theory’s claims, the less relevant evidence becomes. (similarity 0.80)
• Conspiracists reinterpret disconfirming evidence as planted by the conspirators. (similarity 0.80)
• Conspiracy theorists reinterpret absence of proof and challenges as confirming evidence (similarity 0.79)
• Disconfirming evidence can strengthen rather than weaken committed beliefs. (similarity 0.78)
• Insider-status claims outweigh lack of evidence for believers. (similarity 0.78)