John Schwenkler was kind enough to engage Andrew once again over the origins of Trig:
[Is] it still possible to think that the Palins might have pulled off the greatest con in American political history by pretending to be the parents of a Downs Syndrome baby so that he could be their “building bloc [sic] for appealing to the Christianist base”? Sure, but it’s also possible to think that I don’t really have hands, but only a loon or a philosopher could think it’s necessary to present an argument against that.
By the same token, consider the claim that Sarah Palin has at her disposal, but has refused to provide, “evidence completely obliterating all doubts” about the matter. Given the form that the doubts about her pregnancy have so far taken, this is clearly not true for if Palin had the cunning to fake a pregnancy, then obviously she could have busted out some gubernatorial muscle and forged a birth certificate as well, which means that short of actually going back in time, the kind of person for whom doubts remain at this point is not the kind of person whose concerns one takes especially seriously. Hence even if such a thing could be done, Palin clearly does not have a “responsibility to clear any questions up”; it matters at least whether the questions are reasonable ones, and also whether pretending to take them seriously would set a worrisome precedent by dignifying with an official response a group of openly hostile bloggers’ ludicrous attempt at a smear campaign.
I agree with a lot of what John says here, though I don't think that Andrew is consciously trying to smear Palin. He honestly has questions about the Palin birth story, still. Nothing I can stay is going to change that fact, so instead I want to examine how someone who can think so very clearly and brilliantly about many other subjects fails to see the light on this one story. I think part of the problem is some of the more gifted analytical minds in the blogosphere, who happily engage Andrew on other issues, didn't want to touch this story with a ten-foot pole (Schwenkler, Massie, and Will were exceptions). Ross, who aired his displeasure with Andrew without naming names, didn't combat the rumors directly. Bloggers on the right mocked Andrew for engaging these theories, but there was fairly little intelligent push back. Bloggers on the left mostly ignored the story either out of respect for Andrew or because they found little chance of political gain in it. I suspect With few writers around to counter Andrew's analysis, he wasn't cut short and forcefully rebuked before things got out of control, and he was therefore free to construct his own narrative. These suspicions were fed by conspiracy-minded readers who migrated to the Dish because we were the only outlet for their theories. Soon the piles of "evidence" became so complex, and believers became so convinced of their own dogma, that disproving said rumors became impossible.
Most issues I vigorously disagree with Andrew on involve numbers. Last fall, looking at this chart, I tried my best to explain to him why teenagers being slightly more prone to delivering Down Syndrome babies was indicative of nothing. When presented as fractions these differences look large, but convert these numbers into percents and it becomes clear that the 0.08 percent chance a teenager has of delivering a Down Syndrome baby is not much different than the 0.071 percent chance a twenty-year-old bears, and it is probably not a statistically significant difference. Compare those risks to the risk a woman Sarah Palin's age had, around two percent, and you begin to understand why probability is not on Andrew's side. Sarah Palin was twenty-five times more likely to deliver a Down Syndrome baby than her daughter. Apply these sorts of probabilities to a thousand other shreds of "evidence" and you see why I wrote this a few months ago.