I think it's a conflation of three elements: 1. If no confession, then for practical purposes no proof of X 2. If X did not occur, it is pointless to speculate about conseq of X 3. A hypothesis is only worth a sane person's attention if it's likely or if it has important conseq
-
-
Show this thread
-
But you can't use #1, lack of definitive proof (like a confession), to apply #3, hypothesis is too stupid to investigate, without having some *independent* reason to accept #2, conseq are trivial even if true lack of definitive proof of X is NOT definitive proof of not-X
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.