Muddying the waters
Muddying the waters is a philosophical concept that is used to describe when, after a clear-cut proof has been given, someone else seeks to assert complicated and confusing suggestions that have no basis in reality, that in effect destroy the clarity of the original proof, and whose aim is to destroy the validity of the proof itself. Muddying the waters generally involves lengthy and complicated terminology, although it can also be done by reference to misleading and irrelevant concepts.
Muddying the waters is different to disinformation in that disinformation will introduce a new, clear-cut theory, to suggest that it is true, which will be pushed so as to hide what the real truth is, and to push the opposite of the disinformation aspect. Muddying the waters takes an existing proven case and tries to makes it proof less compelling.
Muddying the waters should also not be confused with legitimate criticism. Some proofs are claimed to be clear-cut but in actual fact are not clear-cut at all, and legitimate investigation can uncover problems with the proof. Muddying the waters offers no such criticism or counter-evidence, and instead attempts to stop someone who would otherwise have been convinced of the truth of an issue.
Muddying the waters is regularly used to justify cyber stalking and cyber bullying and is particularly used in smear campaigns. Whilst it could in theory be used as a tactic by secret service agencies, current research indicates that this is not a common tactic by their group.
Muddying the waters is also used in pseudo-scientific and pseudo-philosophical circles, to try to dispute scientific or philosophical studies. In intelligent communities, however, muddying the waters does not work, as it is very easy to prove when muddying the waters has happened.
An example of muddying the waters
A person had committed identity theft, impersonating someone else's name online, and stealing a web site that they had previously owned. To prove that the identity theft had occurred, the victim displayed screen shots, e-mails with full headers, credit card receipts, old posts by the web site hosts themselves, and thousands of agreements going back years which all stated this.
On the contrary, however, the culprit of the crime claimed that it was "not true", giving no evidence whatsoever to dispute it, simply asserting that the victim was making up crazy stories. Various discussion about it, which had no evidence whatsoever associated with it acted to muddy the waters on what was clear-cut evidence. Suggesting that the 1,000 pages of e-mails could have been forged, or that they were too long to wade through, are all an aspect of muddying the waters, since, on the very first page, it says that the e-mails were from the host to the owner.
Targets of muddying the waters
Muddying the waters convinces people who are not prepared to research evidence, people with short attention spans, and people who are prepared to ignore something that is easy to prove is true with copious evidence because one person says that it is not true with no evidence at all.
Scientific, legal and philosophical communities do not generally fall victim to muddying the waters. It is therefore used in social circles and as a part of a smear campaign or to justify a crime.