Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Many successful criminal prosecutions rely largely or entirely on circumstantial evidence, and civil charges are frequently based on circumstantial or indirect evidence. The common metaphor for the strongest possible evidence in any case—the "smoking gun"—is an example of proof based on circumstantial evidence. [ 5 ]
More broadly, proof by contradiction is any form of argument that establishes a statement by arriving at a contradiction, even when the initial assumption is not the negation of the statement to be proved. In this general sense, proof by contradiction is also known as indirect proof, proof by assuming the opposite, [2] and reductio ad ...
Evidentiality may be direct or indirect: direct evidentials are used to describe information directly perceived by the speaker through vision as well as other sensory experiences while indirect evidentials consist of the other grammatical markers for evidence such as quotatives and inferentials.
In other words, the defendant's conduct after the crime is circumstantial (indirect) evidence that the defendant intended to commit the crime, or, in fact, committed the crime. The New York State Unified Court System discusses false alibis (in the context of "consciousness of guilt") as a form of admissible evidence: [1]
Instead, researchers might find indirect evidence, such as climate changes, anomalies in sediment, or traces of nuclear waste. The hypothesis also speculates that artifacts from past civilizations could be found on the Moon and Mars, where erosion and tectonic activity are less likely to erase evidence. The concept of pre-human civilizations ...
Trace fossils provide us with indirect evidence of life in the past, such as the footprints, tracks, burrows, borings, and feces left behind by animals, rather than the preserved remains of the body of the actual animal itself. Unlike most other fossils, which are produced only after the death of the organism concerned, trace fossils provide us ...
Though it is generally agreed that there is positive evidence (i.e. evidence that demonstrates grammatical linguistic constructions) in the language input, there is a dearth of direct negative evidence in the general language learner input since most native or veteran speakers produce grammatical as opposed to ungrammatical speech. [5]
Indirect negative evidence refers to the absence of ungrammatical sentences in the language that the child is exposed to. There is debate among linguists and psychologists about whether negative evidence can help children determine the grammar of their language. Negative evidence, if it is used, could help children rule out ungrammatical ...