|
Anecdotal
Anecdotal evidence (or anecdata) is evidence based on descriptions and reports of individual, personal experiences, or observations, collected in a non- systematic manner. The term ''anecdotal'' encompasses a variety of forms of evidence. This word refers to personal experiences, self-reported claims, or eyewitness accounts of others, including those from fictional sources, making it a broad category that can lead to confusion due to its varied interpretations. Anecdotal evidence can be true or false but is not usually subjected to the methodology of scholarly method, the scientific method, or the rules of legal, historical, academic, or intellectual rigor, meaning that there are little or no safeguards against fabrication or inaccuracy. However, the use of anecdotal reports in advertising or promotion of a product, service, or idea may be considered a testimonial, which is highly regulated in certain jurisdictions. The persuasiveness of anecdotal evidence compared to that of ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Argument From Anecdote
An argument from anecdote is an informal logical fallacy, when an anecdote is used to draw an improper logical conclusion. The fallacy can take many forms, such as cherry picking, hasty generalization, proof by assertion Proof most often refers to: * Proof (truth), argument or sufficient evidence for the truth of a proposition * Alcohol proof, a measure of an alcoholic drink's strength Proof may also refer to: Mathematics and formal logic * Formal proof, a ..., and so on. The fallacy does not mean that every single instance of sense data or testimony must be considered a fallacy, only that anecdotal evidence, when improperly used in logic, results in a fallacy. Since anecdotal evidence can result in different kinds of logical fallacies, identifying when this fallacy is being used and how it is being used, is critical in reaching the appropriate logical interpretation. The most common form of the fallacy is the use of anecdotes to create a fallacy of Hasty Generaliza ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Evidence
Evidence for a proposition is what supports the proposition. It is usually understood as an indication that the proposition is truth, true. The exact definition and role of evidence vary across different fields. In epistemology, evidence is what Justification (epistemology), justifies beliefs or what makes it rational to hold a certain wikt:doxastic, doxastic attitude. For example, a perceptual experience of a tree may serve as evidence to justify the belief that there is a tree. In this role, evidence is usually understood as a private mental state. In Phenomenology (philosophy), phenomenology, evidence is limited to intuitive knowledge, often associated with the controversial assumption that it provides indubitable access to truth. In the science, scientific evidence is information gained through the scientific method that confirms or disconfirms Hypothesis#Scientific hypothesis, scientific hypotheses, acting as a neutral arbiter between competing Scientific theory, theories. Mea ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Testimony
Testimony is a solemn attestation as to the truth of a matter. Etymology The words "testimony" and "testify" both derive from the Latin word ''testis'', referring to the notion of a disinterested third-party witness. Law In the law, testimony is a form of evidence in which a witness makes a "solemn declaration or affirmation ... for the purpose of establishing or proving some fact". According to Bryan A. Garner, the editor of '' Black's Law Dictionary'', the word "testimony" is properly used as a mass noun (that is, always uninflected regardless of number), and not a count noun. Testimony may be oral or written, and it is usually made by oath or affirmation under penalty of perjury. Historically, to be admissible in court and to ensure maximum reliability and validity, written testimony presented in the form of an affidavit (i.e., the witness would not be appearing in court at the hearing at which the affidavit was considered as evidence) was usually witnessed by anot ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Cherry Picking
Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position while ignoring a significant portion of related and similar cases or data that may contradict that position. Cherry picking may be committed intentionally or unintentionally. The term is based on the perceived process of harvesting fruit, such as cherries. The picker would be expected to select only the ripest and healthiest fruits. An observer who sees only the selected fruit may thus wrongly conclude that most, or even all, of the tree's fruit is in a likewise good condition. This can also give a false impression of the quality of the fruit (since it is only a sample and is not a representative sample). A concept sometimes confused with cherry picking is the idea of gathering only the fruit that is easy to harvest, while ignoring other fruit that is higher up on the tree and thus more difficult to obtain (see ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Case Report
In medicine, a case report is a detailed report of the symptoms, signs, diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of an individual patient. Case reports may contain a demographic profile of the patient, but usually describe an unusual or novel occurrence. Some case reports also contain a literature review of other reported cases. Case reports are professional narratives that provide feedback on clinical practice guidelines and offer a framework for early signals of effectiveness, adverse events, and cost. They can be shared for medical, scientific, or educational purposes. Types Most case reports are on one of six topics: * An unexpected association between diseases or symptoms. * An unexpected event in the course of observing or treating a patient. * Findings that shed new light on the possible pathogenesis of a disease or an adverse effect. * Unique or rare features of a disease. * Unique therapeutic approaches. * A positional or quantitative variation of the anatomical structure ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Hearsay
Hearsay, in a legal forum, is an out-of-court statement which is being offered in court for the truth of what was asserted. In most courts, hearsay evidence is Inadmissible evidence, inadmissible (the "hearsay evidence rule") unless an exception to the hearsay rule applies. For example, to prove that Tom was in town, a witness testifies, "Susan told me that Tom was in town." Because the witness's evidence relies on an out-of-court statement that Susan made, if Susan is unavailable for cross-examination, the answer is hearsay. A justification for the objection is that the person who made the statement is not in court and thus not available for cross-examination. Note, however, that if the matter at hand is not the truth of the assertion about Tom being in town but the fact that Susan said the specific words, it may be acceptable. For example, it would be acceptable to ask a witness what Susan told them about Tom in a defamation case against Susan. Now the witness is asked about the ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Perjury
Perjury (also known as forswearing) is the intentional act of swearing a false oath or falsifying an affirmation to tell the truth, whether spoken or in writing, concerning matters material to an official proceeding."Perjury The act or an instance of a person’s deliberately making material false or misleading statements while under oath. – Also termed false swearing; false oath; (archaically forswearing." Like most other crimes in the common law system, to be convicted of perjury one must have had the ''intention'' (''mens rea'') to commit the act and have ''actually committed'' the act (''actus reus''). Further, statements that ''are facts'' cannot be considered perjury, even if they might arguably constitute an omission, and it is not perjury to lie about matters that are immaterial to the legal proceeding. Statements that entail an ''interpretation'' of fact are not perjury because people often draw inaccurate conclusions unwittingly or make honest mistakes without the ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Under Oath
Traditionally, an oath (from Anglo-Saxon ', also a plight) is a statement of fact or a promise taken by a sacrality as a sign of verity. A common legal substitute for those who object to making sacred oaths is to give an affirmation instead. Nowadays, even when there is no notion of sanctity involved, certain promises said out loud in ceremonial or juridical purpose are referred to as oaths. "To swear" is a verb used to describe the taking of an oath; to make a solemn vow. Etymology The word comes from Anglo-Saxon ': "judicial swearing, solemn appeal to deity in witness of truth or a promise"; from Proto-Germanic '' *aiþaz''; from Proto-Indo-European ''*oi-to-'': "an oath". Common to Celtic and Germanic, possibly a loan-word from one to the other, but the history is obscure and it may be non-Indo-European, in reference to careless invocations of divinity, from the late 12th century. Historical development as a legal concept Jewish tradition The concept of oaths is deep ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Physical Evidence
In evidence law, physical evidence (also called real evidence or material evidence) is any material object that plays some role in the matter that gave rise to the litigation, introduced as evidence in a judicial proceeding (such as a trial) to prove a fact in issue based on the object's physical characteristics. In American law Tampering It is an offense at common law "to tamper with, conceal, or destroy evidence knowing that it may be wanted in a judicial proceeding or is being sought by law enforcement officers."67 Corpus Juris Secundum ''Obstructing Justice'' § 63 (footnotes omitted). This is also a crime under statutes of many U.S. states. A 2004 review found that 32 states had a statute "that prohibits, in some form, the concealment, destruction, or tampering with evidence."John F. Decker, ''The Varying Parameters of Obstruction of Justice in American Criminal Law'', 65 LA. L. Rev. 40, 83-84 (2004). Evidence tampering "generally refers to physical evidence and is n ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Placebo Effect
A placebo ( ) can be roughly defined as a sham medical treatment. Common placebos include inert tablets (like sugar pills), inert injections (like saline), sham surgery, and other procedures. Placebos are used in randomized clinical trials to test the efficacy of medical treatments. In a placebo-controlled trial, any change in the control group is known as the ''placebo response'', and the difference between this and the result of no treatment is the ''placebo effect''. Placebos in clinical trials should ideally be indistinguishable from so-called verum treatments under investigation, except for the latter's particular hypothesized medicinal effect. This is to shield test participants (with their consent) from knowing who is getting the placebo and who is getting the treatment under test, as patients' and clinicians' expectations of efficacy can influence results. The idea of a placebo effect was discussed in 18th century psychology, but became more prominent in the 20th ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Hasty Generalization
A faulty generalization is an informal fallacy wherein a conclusion is drawn about all or many instances of a phenomenon on the basis of one or a few instances of that phenomenon. It is similar to a proof by example in mathematics. It is an example of jumping to conclusions. For example, one may generalize about all people or all members of a group from what one knows about just one or a few people: * If one meets a rude person from a given country X, one may suspect that most people in country X are rude. * If one sees only white swans, one may suspect that all swans are white. Expressed in more precise philosophical language, a fallacy of defective induction is a conclusion that has been made on the basis of weak premises, or one which is not justified by sufficient or unbiased evidence. Unlike fallacies of relevance, in fallacies of defective induction, the premises are related to the conclusions, yet only weakly buttress the conclusions, hence a faulty generalization is pr ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
