how would you call such thinking?
By cowboyofhell
@cowboyofhell (3063)
Philippines
April 6, 2012 7:06am CST
While the proof and evidence on something a person has make him the innocent and righteous, it does not mean he or she has not erred at all. Do you agree? Take a look at an example:
Believe that there is one room with two doors. The goal is to prove that a certain person had not entered the room. Now there's a witness that testify the man in question did not enter the room because he haven't entered at the visible door. But in reality, the man went inside the room through the other door. As defence therefore, the man said he indeed entered the room that day to which the witness insisted "if he really entered the room, why has no one entered the (visible) door? I am sure no one passed through that door."
What is your take on the witness' act? An extraordinary proof does not mean its believable? If you are asked to testify would you do the same as the witness did?
1 response
@jkct02 (2874)
• Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia
6 Apr 12
If I were that witness, I will just say what I know and what I saw. I would not make any conclusions or explain what I know or saw means. I will only tell what was that I see or know. I will say,"I didn't see anyone enter THAT door from n time to n time". I won't argue that no one "entered that door" means "no one entered that room". I didn't see what is in that room. I only saw the door. That is only what I know.
