Fallacy
Last reviewed:
Part of:How to argue fairly →
Moving the goalposts changes the standard of proof after it has been met, so the claim can never be accepted. Asking for better evidence at the start is fair. Changing the demand only when the evidence arrives is not.
Moving the goalposts is filed here as a fallacy. If you cannot point to that move in the remark in front of you, you do not yet have this fallacy. Disliking the conclusion is not enough, and a true premise does not repair a broken step.
This page adds no new definition and no statistic. The three scenes below only move the library’s example into a meeting, a news sentence, and a social feed. None of them is a reported case, and none of them carries a number.
The library’s example is the anchor, quoted so the later scenes cannot drift: ““I will accept the result if there is a randomised trial.” When the trial appears: “I meant two trials, and also a different outcome.” The earlier standard is abandoned.” The three that follow change the room and keep the step.
Picture that example in a meeting, aimed at someone who has to answer before the next item. If the room cannot give the reply on the card, it has not answered the point. It has used Moving the goalposts. No survey of offices is claimed. The test is whether the step matches the card.
The same step can sit in a speech or a headline, where the pause is shorter and the audience is larger. Imagine the stored example said into a microphone and left unpacked. This is not a claim about a particular broadcast or a particular paper. The correction is still the reply on the card, not a different theory of the press.
Imagine the example as a caption. Agreement is not evidence the step was valid, and outrage is not evidence a different fallacy was in play. Match the step to the definition before you name it.
Agree the standard before looking. If the standard should change, say why the old one was wrong, not merely that the new evidence is inconvenient.
“That is Moving the goalposts” is not yet an answer. Name the step, then ask the question the card tells you to ask. If the remark survives, drop the label. If it fails, you still owe a reason for what you think instead. The reply does not hand you a new conclusion.
Moving the goalposts is easy to shout in place of a neighbour. The nearest card people mix this up with is Straw man. Use the comparison linked under this section when you are unsure which name fits. The comparison quotes the cards. It does not invent a third definition.
Write down the sentence you think is the mistake. If it matches one definition, use that name. If it matches neither, do not force a label. If it matches both, answer the two steps separately.
Someone asks for one trial, gets it, and then says only two trials would count. What is this?
The options and the explanation open in the quiz. Scoring stays on this device. There is no pass mark on this card.
Moving the goalposts changes the standard of proof after it has been met, so the claim can never be accepted. Asking for better evidence at the start is fair. Changing the demand only when the evidence arrives is not.
“I will accept the result if there is a randomised trial.” When the trial appears: “I meant two trials, and also a different outcome.” The earlier standard is abandoned.
Agree the standard before looking. If the standard should change, say why the old one was wrong, not merely that the new evidence is inconvenient.