Page Summary

Sometimes when we don't have hard and fast, carved in concrete answers to critical questions, we rely on circumstantial evidence.   How do we do that?

First we'll define the term and then as an example and to clarify what is meant by circumstantial evidence, we'll focus on the question:  What is circumstantial evidence and how does it relate to the forced motherhood controversy?   

Circumstantial Evidence Defined:

We'll begin with clarifying what is meant by the words "circumstantial evidence."

a)    Circumstantial evidence is indirect evidence which leads to, but does not prove as specific conclusion.

b)  Using circumstantial evidence is way of reasoning which draws  probable conclusions from facts that are known.  The know facts lead  to conclusion that are a reasonable step from the know facts.    For example, the statement:  "When she came in her umbrella was dripping wet." implies but does not conclusively prove that she had been outside in the rain.

c)  Deductions regarding the topic of discussion can be drawn form related facts and information.   They infer other facts which usually and reasonable follow from the available evidence.  

d)    Circumstantial evidence consists of facts pointing in a particular direction-- facts that are in harmony with one side or another the hypothesis being analyzed, but standing alone this related evidence is not sufficient to draw any definite conclusions.   

e)  Deductions and implication can be drawn form available data and  information which is somewhat distant from, but relates to the topic of discussion.   This is commonly relied upon when direct evidence is not available.

f)  If you want a strict, legal definition, we refer you to   Black Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, Page 221.   There you'll find a rather lengthy definition of "circumstantial evidence."   

.

Conclusions Drawn from Circumstantial Evidence:

If you have only one piece of circumstantial  evidence,  carrying that evidence to a specific conclusion is prone to significant error.  However, when you have numerous pieces of  circumstantial  evidence all pointing in the same directions,  carrying them, collectively, to a specific conclusion is usually quite reliable.    Thus we have gradual shift in the probability of the conclusion being accurate  which goes from the conclusion is indeed accurate to it being totally  false.  It's like a rainbow shifting from one color to the next, or similar to night becoming day of vice versa.   

Commonly there is circumstantial evidence pointing in both directions.   

Describing Commonalities:

It's also a way to explain something by making inferences which connect things that are unrelated but have a commonality.  For example:  examine the statement:

 " The truth° is to  the forced motherhood promoters°  
as kryptonite is to Superman.

This statement takes a know relationship ^1**   and infers that a similar relationship applies in another unrelated  area.   The above statement says that the truth will take the power away from the anti-abortion leaders -- that the truth is a powerful a way to stop the anti-choice leaders --  that the  truth is equally as effective at taking the power form the anti-choice leaders as is exposing Superman to kryptonite is to stopping Superman.  

See:   The Seven Principles of Hermes --  As above so below.°  

.

Example:

06   ---   What is circumstantial evidence 
and how does it relate to the forced motherhood controversy?

http://www.choice101.com/06-circumstantial evidence.html

Are you aware that the anti-abortion leaders produce more abortions°   than they prevent?