edthecynic
Censored for Cynicism
- Oct 20, 2008
- 43,044
- 6,883
- 1,830
Logic 202: If you have to paraphrase rather than quote directly, you knew your argument was false before you began.Anyone who knows anything about basic logic and/or critical thinking will recognize what pitiful, flimsy arguments Mueller made at his press conference the other day.
To paraphrase one of Mueller's statements: "We didn't find evidence that he colluded, but we didn't evidence that he did not collude either." How do you prove that someone did not collude? How do you prove a negative? It is very hard, and often impossible, to prove a negative. So to say that "we could not prove he didn't do it" is to use the flimsy argument of citing the failure to prove a negative. This is Logic 101.
Think about it. Suppose a hostile neighbor accuses you of beating your wife. The police detective says, "I found no evidence that you beat your wife; however, I found no evidence that you did not beat your wife. Therefore, I am recommending that the DA indict you for wife beating."
To paraphrase another one of Mueller's arguments: "If I had found clear evidence that Trump did not commit a crime, I would have said so." Okay, and the obvious logical corollary to this is that if Mueller had found clear evidence that Trump did commit a crime, he would have said so. Again, this is basic logic, stuff that college students are taught in an introductory logic or critical thinking course.
What is equally pitiful, if not more so, is that Democrats are using Mueller's statements as their basis for renewed calls for impeachment.
Last edited: