On Lincoln’s Sexuality, and Poisoning the Well

The argument here quoted in an article about Lincoln’s sexuality is so obviously wrong I cannot let it go without comment:

“We are getting closer to the day that a majority of younger, less homophobic historians will at long last accept the evidence of Lincoln’s same-sex component,” John Stauffer, chair of Harvard University’s Department of American Civilization, told Gay City News, adding, “We’re already seeing the beginnings of a trend that will amount to a major paradigm shift.”

This argument is an example of a rhetorical fallacy known as poisoning the well.  The implication above is that historians who reject the arguments that Lincoln was homosexual reject them because the historians are homophobic!  But that’s wrong, since historians might reject the claim simply because the evidence is wrong or just unconvincing.  The homophobia among the historians who reject the claim is simply assumed in order to advance Stauffer’s pet theory.

We could turn this argument on its head (not unreasonably, given the article’s provenance), and argue that the only reason why some historians believe Lincoln was gay was because those historians are themselves gay.  So now the arguments for the claim are get tainted in the other direction.

If you make an argument, then it’s up to you to adduce the positive evidence for your claim.  You cannot simply assume the alternative hypothesis, and then try to shame those who assume the null hypothesis as the default into accepting your preferred alternative.  The claim that Lincoln was gay must stand or fall based on the evidence, not because of any putative anti-gay bias among historians.  This is a bald attempt to shift the burden of proof from the historian making the claim (who has the burden to show the claim is true, which is proper) to other historians not making the claim (who are now supposed to assume the burden of show that the claim is false, or worse, having to demonstrate that they’re not homophobic).

I am sensitive to (incorrect) arguments like this, as theists perform this rhetorical legerdemain all the time, assuming theistic beliefs as the default position and then demanding that atheists “be willing to admit”  the existence of “higher realities” or some such.  Creationists have been telling us for years that "intelligent design" (and before that, "scientific creationism") is a major paradigm shift in our thinking about evolution.  Puh-leez.  For example, here is a statement of the purpose of the Templeton Foundation:

We are trying to persuade people that no human has yet grasped 1% of what can be known about spiritual realities. So we are encouraging people to start using the same methods of science that have been so productive in other areas, in order to discover spiritual realities.

The argument being made here is that the reason we don’t know about spiritual realities is because we can only grasp 1% of what can be known!  But that argument is wrong, since one reason to deny that such realities exist is either that “spiritual realities” is a meaningless phrase, or that no sufficient evidence had been presented to accept their existence.  Templeton, like most theists, assumes the existence of God (for which “spiritual realities” is just a euphemism), and then works backwards to give reasons for holding that belief (and in the case of the Templeton Foundation, by also undermining scientific authority).  But scientific claims don’t work that way, and existence is always predicated on evidence.

I don’t know whether Lincoln was gay, nor do I much care.  But please, if you’re going to claim he was, then leave the personalities of those who disagree with your argument out of it.  (Yes of course religious fundamentalists are going to deny Lincoln’s homosexuality, the same way they deny the atheism of the founding fathers, but that’s not what we’re talking about here.)  If you are an advocate of gay rights or other issues, just realize that arguments like the one above don’t help your cause.