Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."
Many of our ideas about the world are based more on feelings than facts, sensibilities than science, and rage than reality. We gravitate toward ideas that make us feel comfortable in areas such as religion, politics, philosophy, social justice, love and sex, humanity, and morality. We avoid ideas that make us feel uncomfortable. This avoidance is a largely unconscious process that affects our judgment and gets in the way of our ability to reach rational and reasonable conclusions. By understanding how our mind works in this area, we can start embracing uncomfortable ideas and be better informed, be more understanding of others, and make better decisions in all areas of life.
* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.
|
I know of no specific fallacy that addresses lack of motive, perhaps because of its specific legal usage. This would fall under the generic non sequitur . |
|||
answered on Tuesday, Sep 08, 2020 06:21:41 AM by Bo Bennett, PhD | ||||
Bo Bennett, PhD Suggested These Categories |
||||
Comments |
||||
|
|
P1) Evidence Y suggests party A did a deed P2) Party A has no motive C) Party A is not guilty Well, this is contingent on the veracity of P2. Does the person really have no motive? Was a motive necessary (e.g. is it a manslaughter case?) It would also help to look at P1 again to see if the evidence really does suggest something (e.g. it suggests this person did handle the gun...but are there any other fingerprints on there? What else do we know about the case - for instance, if the shooting happened at 9am, but the accused is only recorded as arriving at the crime scene at 10.30am, does it make sense to argue they were responsible?) It's not a convincing argument - yet - because of the unsupported premise P2 - but it is defensible reasoning. |
answered on Tuesday, Sep 08, 2020 07:37:43 AM by TrappedPrior (RotE) | |
TrappedPrior (RotE) Suggested These Categories |
|
Comments |
|
|
|
There seems to be a hidden and unstated premise at play here -- something linking in some way (a) commission of a crime and (b) motive. As I understand the scenario, there is (some unknown quantity of) evidence to suggest that the accused committed a crime; at the same time, there is a lack of any (obvious) motive for the person committing the crime. The premise that I see as missing (and that I see being central to the argument) is the assumption that a motive is necessary whenever there is a crime. As written, the argument seems to be:
There would be a logical flow to the argument if it were re-written as:
However, I suspect that many might not accept the now-stated third assumption as being true, rendering the conclusion suspect. |
answered on Tuesday, Sep 08, 2020 10:55:46 AM by Arlo | |
Arlo Suggested These Categories |
|
Comments |
|
|
|
We deem the evidence incontrovertible for purposes here: Fingerprints were on the gun that killed the deceased. On TV, we hear a lot about “means, motive, and opportunity.” While this is great when trying to convince a jury of guilt in a criminal proceeding, it is only an investigative tool. A motive is not an element of the event here (death caused by gun, which — from what we know, could have been self-inflicted). A court should not convict merely on these three famous elements, but must find proof beyond a reasonable doubt of each element of a particular crime. At best, this is a feeble argument, as we can see by noting the implicit premise required to link the stated premise with the conclusion. Fingerprints on the gun prove only that there are fingerprints on the gun. All else, under the fact situation set forth, is speculation. Perhaps we should call it the Fallacy of Speculative Evidence. |
answered on Tuesday, Sep 08, 2020 11:25:16 AM by Dr. Richard | |
Dr. Richard Suggested These Categories |
|
Comments |
|
|