Question

...

Never Being Named Directly - Fallacy or Fair Argument?

For example Bob robs a bank, but indirect evidence plus multiple corroborating eyewitness testimonies implicates another man, Steve in helping Bob plan the heist. However, some police reports (not all, some are still hidden in the archives) leak to the public and their contents never even mention Steve whatsoever and only implicates Bob as the executor of the heist. Steve sees this as his exoneration and claims because the reports make no mention of him whatsoever that means in his eyes he's innocent and that his accusers were either lying or being deceived. Although some reports were leaked, more police reports regarding the case are is still in the archives and Steve has not seen them yet.

Is Steve committing any type of fallacy here? Is it fair to disregard the evidence and testimony like this, as Steve has just done?Sorry if this example was sort of bad, I'm not that creative nor good at articulating my points.
asked on Monday, Sep 30, 2019 07:22:45 PM by

Top Categories Suggested by Community

Comments

Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."

Eat Meat... Or Don't.

Roughly 95% of Americans don’t appear to have an ethical problem with animals being killed for food, yet all of us would have a serious problem with humans being killed for food. What does an animal lack that a human has that justifies killing the animal for food but not the human?

As you start to list properties that the animal lacks to justify eating them, you begin to realize that some humans also lack those properties, yet we don’t eat those humans. Is this logical proof that killing and eating animals for food is immoral? Don’t put away your steak knife just yet.

In Eat Meat… Or Don’t, we examine the moral arguments for and against eating meat with both philosophical and scientific rigor. This book is not about pushing some ideological agenda; it’s ultimately a book about critical thinking.

Get 20% off this book and all Bo's books*. Use the promotion code: websiteusers

* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.

Get the Book

Answers

...
mchasewalker
0
Not a fallacy, per se, but it does resemble the plot to Taylor Sheridan’s Hell or High Water.
answered on Monday, Sep 30, 2019 08:59:24 PM by mchasewalker

Comments

...
skips777
0
Interesting truth few people know, there are no fallacies in bank heist stories.
answered on Monday, Sep 30, 2019 11:28:24 PM by skips777

Comments

...
Bo Bennett, PhD
0
Fallacies relate to arguments, so we can assume there are some implied arguments by Steve. But we also need to make sure these are errors with reasoning .

1) Some police report leak to the public and their contents never even mention Steve whatsoever; therefore, Steve is exonerated.

No fallacy, this is just a misunderstanding of exoneration in a legal sense.

2) Steve claims because the reports make no mention of him whatsoever that means in his eyes he's innocent.

No fallacy, he is just wrong and desperate. Again a legal issue. Innocence isn't proven; at most this just demonstrated insufficient evidence to prove him guilty.

3) Steve claims because the reports make no mention of him whatsoever that means that his accusers were either lying or being deceived.

No fallacy, perhaps just sloppy/ambiguous wording. "Means" implies causality, in which case, this is wrong. A lack of evidence might "suggest" that his accusers were either lying or being deceived, depending on circumstances.
answered on Tuesday, Oct 01, 2019 06:41:07 AM by Bo Bennett, PhD

Comments