Refutation and Confirmation
Topics of Invention
for Refutation and Confirmation
PROBABLE / IMPROBABLE ~ Do the persons associated with this issue or argument act consistently with their motivations and characters?
Motive ~ inner drive or need causing one to act in a certain way for gain or advantage
What is that motive or agenda?
How plausible is the motive?
Manner of Life and Character ~
Do the character’s actions or words in the given context make sense?
If someone is known for acting in a certain manner, or expressing particular views, and now does not, one could question if he indeed has done or said that which is attributed to him
CLEAR / OBSCURE ~ What can we know about actions or speech?
Physical Evidence
How much?
Quality of evidence
Gathered by whom? Where?
Is the evidence circumstantial or consequential?
Witness
Who?
How many?
Are the witnesses consistent? Reliable? Prejudiced?
What do they say or imply?
(Reliable witnesses can make the implausible plausible while disreputable witnesses might cause one to question their report)
POSSIBLE / IMPOSSIBLE ~ What is the physical possibility of the acts, facts or details which are disputed?
Requires outside knowledge (research!)
Are the acts or facts consistent with what you know to be true elsewhere?
Are there contradictions of the laws of nature or of proven facts, actions or circumstances relative to time, place, duration or occasion?
Could the persons involved have a reasonable hope of success?
CONSISTENT / INCONSISTENT ~ Are the actions or words logical or illogical?
Can actions or expressions coexist easily, or is there some clash between two points?
for Refutation and Confirmation
PROBABLE / IMPROBABLE ~ Do the persons associated with this issue or argument act consistently with their motivations and characters?
Motive ~ inner drive or need causing one to act in a certain way for gain or advantage
What is that motive or agenda?
How plausible is the motive?
Manner of Life and Character ~
Do the character’s actions or words in the given context make sense?
If someone is known for acting in a certain manner, or expressing particular views, and now does not, one could question if he indeed has done or said that which is attributed to him
CLEAR / OBSCURE ~ What can we know about actions or speech?
Physical Evidence
How much?
Quality of evidence
Gathered by whom? Where?
Is the evidence circumstantial or consequential?
Witness
Who?
How many?
Are the witnesses consistent? Reliable? Prejudiced?
What do they say or imply?
(Reliable witnesses can make the implausible plausible while disreputable witnesses might cause one to question their report)
POSSIBLE / IMPOSSIBLE ~ What is the physical possibility of the acts, facts or details which are disputed?
Requires outside knowledge (research!)
Are the acts or facts consistent with what you know to be true elsewhere?
Are there contradictions of the laws of nature or of proven facts, actions or circumstances relative to time, place, duration or occasion?
Could the persons involved have a reasonable hope of success?
CONSISTENT / INCONSISTENT ~ Are the actions or words logical or illogical?
Can actions or expressions coexist easily, or is there some clash between two points?