Factual propositions cannot be sustained merely by citing negative evidence
Evidence
This type of reasoning is unacceptable because of the difficulty in sustaining a factual proposition merely by negative evidence. — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 902
Categorization
- corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 902
- XREF: connects to: An illicit major fallacy distributes an undistributed major term conclusion — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 865; Direct evidence proves a fact without requiring inference or presumption — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 231; Proving a different point than the actual issue is the fallacy of irrelevance — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 1012 (+13 more)
Library Connections
- Proving a different point than the actual issue is the fallacy of irrelevance
#complicates(0.40) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 1012
Broader Connections
- No genuine knowledge can be derived from a state of ignorance
#corroborates(0.80) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 1077 - Deceptive judicial rhetoric does not refute explanations of behavior
#exemplifies(0.70) — Richard A. Posner, What Has Pragmatism to Offer Law?, 120 - Direct evidence proves a fact without requiring inference or presumption
#qualifies(0.50) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 231 - An unprincipled and unsound legal argument can never be right
#contradicts(0.50) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 83 - Facts must be discovered through observation rather than logical deduction alone.
#expands(0.50) — Bertrand Russell, History of Western Philosophy, 2114