Never Being Named Directly - Fallacy or Fair Argument?
Historical archive only. New interaction is disabled.
Original Question
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.
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.
Answers
3Interesting truth few people know, there are no fallacies in bank heist stories.
Not a fallacy, per se, but it does resemble the plot to Taylor Sheridan’s Hell or High Water.
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.
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.
Master Logical Fallacies Online
Take the Virversity course and sharpen your reasoning skills with structured lessons.
View Online Course