Is "Where there's smoke, there's fire" valid?

Is "Where there's smoke, there's fire" valid?

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/where there's smoke, there's fire

Definition of where there's smoke, there's fire

chiefly US

—used to say that if people are saying that someone has done something wrong there is usually a good reason for what they are saying “Do you believe those rumors about the mayor?” “Well, you know what they say, where there's smoke, there's fire.”

Click to expand...

We see this concept... seldom outright named as such, but it's there... in judicial and criminal cases where people will believe a flurry of accusations over evidence to the contrary all the time. For example: In a jury murder trial, a known ciminal can have piles of evidence pointing toward innocence in this particular crime, yet some people will actually say things like, "Well I'm sure they're guilty of something somewhere else." to justify their guilty verdict/vote.

Another example: Even after-the-fact, a person who spent a decade in prison before being exonerated is still met with skepticism by large portions of the general public. Their exoneration is dismissed as, "They had to have been guilty, they just beat the system with cheap lawyer tricks and loopholes."

Both of those are variations of the "Where there's smoke, there's fire" mindset. Physical evidence is not as important as circumstantial evidence, or even desired belief.

Yet, as not uncommon as the examples above do happen, given time to hash out, "where there's smoke, there's fire" actually does end up being proven correct on a fairly regular basis.

:shrug:

After the Russian Connection hoopla? It's an absolutely meaningless statement.

Sometimes. If there actually ends up being a fire, that is.

apdst said:

After the Russian Connection hoopla? It's an absolutely meaningless statement.

Click to expand...

What made it valid before?

(That's the inference in your wording.)

radcen said:

Is "Where there's smoke, there's fire" valid?

We see this concept... seldom outright named as such, but it's there... in judicial and criminal cases where people will believe a flurry of accusations over evidence to the contrary all the time. For example: In a jury murder trial, a known ciminal can have piles of evidence pointing toward innocence in this particular crime, yet some people will actually say things like, "Well I'm sure they're guilty of something somewhere else." to justify their guilty verdict/vote.

Another example: Even after-the-fact, a person who spent a decade in prison before being exonerated is still met with skepticism by large portions of the general public. Their exoneration is dismissed as, "They had to have been guilty, they just beat the system with cheap lawyer tricks and loopholes."

Both of those are variations of the "Where there's smoke, there's fire" mindset. Physical evidence is not as important as circumstantial evidence, or even desired belief.

Yet, as not uncommon as the examples above do happen, given time to hash out, "where there's smoke, there's fire" actually does end up being proven correct on a fairly regular basis.

:shrug:

Click to expand...

Depends on who is providing the smoke.

As we have seen in a number of cases, the smoke makers have invented evidence, tampered with it, or withheld it, in order to persuade a jury to convict.

Reminds of some current events, but I can't quite put my finger on what those are.....

For anyone who might be interested...

Difference Between Cliché and Idiom

I'm glad sometimes is an option. I place "where there's smoke, there's fire" right next to "perception is reality". Neither of those things are true by themselves. They are dependent on whatever the reality of the situation actually is.

ocean515 said:

Depends on who is providing the smoke.

As we have seen in a number of cases, the smoke makers have invented evidence, tampered with it, or withheld it, in order to persuade a jury to convict.

Reminds of some current events, but I can't quite put my finger on what those are.....

Click to expand...

Sometimes it's just been outright denial of the person on the "receiving end" (for lack of a better phrase). Especially in exoneration-type cases.

TheGoverness said:

Sometimes. If there actually ends up being a fire, that is.

Click to expand...

But when it's some idiot vaping and calling it a forest fire, it's not valid. If there's no fire, then there's no fire. Creating more smoke doesn't change that fact.

radcen said:

Sometimes it's just been outright denial of the person on the "receiving end" (for lack of a better phrase). Especially in exoneration-type cases.

Click to expand...

Yep. So again, "Where there is smoke, there is fire" depends entirely on who is creating the smoke and why they are fanning it.

radcen said:

Is "Where there's smoke, there's fire" valid?

We see this concept... seldom outright named as such, but it's there... in judicial and criminal cases where people will believe a flurry of accusations over evidence to the contrary all the time. For example: In a jury murder trial, a known ciminal can have piles of evidence pointing toward innocence in this particular crime, yet some people will actually say things like, "Well I'm sure they're guilty of something somewhere else." to justify their guilty verdict/vote.

Another example: Even after-the-fact, a person who spent a decade in prison before being exonerated is still met with skepticism by large portions of the general public. Their exoneration is dismissed as, "They had to have been guilty, they just beat the system with cheap lawyer tricks and loopholes."

Both of those are variations of the "Where there's smoke, there's fire" mindset. Physical evidence is not as important as circumstantial evidence, or even desired belief.

Yet, as not uncommon as the examples above do happen, given time to hash out, "where there's smoke, there's fire" actually does end up being proven correct on a fairly regular basis.

:shrug:

Click to expand...

In the case of the allegations leveled against Trump it is becoming clear that the smoke is not evidence of a fire but of fuming liberals.

radcen said:

For anyone who might be interested...

Difference Between Cliché and Idiom

Click to expand...

<Raising my hand> I am. And the difference between "idiom" and "aphorism" and the difference between "aphorism" and "maxim" and "epigram."

This sentence is confusing and contains an error:

"Some clichés are a thought which are very true; some are thoughts or phrases which are stereotypes; some clichés are facts, and some may not be true."

Also this under "Idioms":

"For example, 'getting cold feet,' it means to feel scared....” Surprised an editor didn't catch that.

TheGoverness said:

Sometimes. If there actually ends up being a fire, that is.

Click to expand...

faithful_servant said:

But when it's some idiot vaping and calling it a forest fire, it's not valid. If there's no fire, then there's no fire. Creating more smoke doesn't change that fact.

Click to expand...

Two truths here.

Smoke can alert us to a fire.

But when something or somebody creates smoke when there is no fire, no amount of smoke will make it a fire.

Many times it all depends on the situation and who is telling there is a fire. It goes to past credibility, possible motivations, etc. Each situation is different.

joG said:

In the case of the allegations leveled against Trump it is becoming clear that the smoke is not evidence of a fire but of fuming liberals.

Click to expand...

Yes, because when President Trump's son admits to intending to collude with Russia, and takes along top advisors of the campaign with him, after which Russia increasingly steps up their election attacks against Clinton, that CLEARLY tells me there's absolutely no way President Trump ever colluded with Russia...

First...if there is a real fire, there is actually a lesser chance of their being smoke. The smoke is a bi-product of there being inadequate resources to have an actual fire.

In the analogy of where there is smoke there is fire, what that would truly mean is that there are elements of fire...but not all the elements for a fire.

And in the context of this current political climate, you cannot judge the statement "where there is smoke there is fire" adequately when there are so many ****ing morons running around lighting smoke bombs shrieking FIRE!!! FIRE!!!

radcen said:

Is "Where there's smoke, there's fire" valid?

We see this concept... seldom outright named as such, but it's there... in judicial and criminal cases where people will believe a flurry of accusations over evidence to the contrary all the time. For example: In a jury murder trial, a known ciminal can have piles of evidence pointing toward innocence in this particular crime, yet some people will actually say things like, "Well I'm sure they're guilty of something somewhere else." to justify their guilty verdict/vote.

Another example: Even after-the-fact, a person who spent a decade in prison before being exonerated is still met with skepticism by large portions of the general public. Their exoneration is dismissed as, "They had to have been guilty, they just beat the system with cheap lawyer tricks and loopholes."

Both of those are variations of the "Where there's smoke, there's fire" mindset. Physical evidence is not as important as circumstantial evidence, or even desired belief.

Yet, as not uncommon as the examples above do happen, given time to hash out, "where there's smoke, there's fire" actually does end up being proven correct on a fairly regular basis.

:shrug:

Click to expand...

Your question is interesting from both a literal and metaphorical standpoint.

Think of the following:

Smoke Signals.
Literally: Yes there is fire, but it is benign. Used to signal.
Metaphorically: Akin to floating a trial balloon. And once the signals dissipate there is no real substance.

Smoke Screen.
Literally: There may or may not be fire. It may be a chemical reaction.
Metaphorically: Trying to cover ones real intent or actions. Deception.

radcen said:

For anyone who might be interested...

Difference Between Cliché and Idiom

Click to expand...

Thank you. One of the reasons I enjoy this board is contributions like that.

radcen said:

Is "Where there's smoke, there's fire" valid?

We see this concept... seldom outright named as such, but it's there... in judicial and criminal cases where people will believe a flurry of accusations over evidence to the contrary all the time. For example: In a jury murder trial, a known ciminal can have piles of evidence pointing toward innocence in this particular crime, yet some people will actually say things like, "Well I'm sure they're guilty of something somewhere else." to justify their guilty verdict/vote.

Another example: Even after-the-fact, a person who spent a decade in prison before being exonerated is still met with skepticism by large portions of the general public. Their exoneration is dismissed as, "They had to have been guilty, they just beat the system with cheap lawyer tricks and loopholes."

Both of those are variations of the "Where there's smoke, there's fire" mindset. Physical evidence is not as important as circumstantial evidence, or even desired belief.

Yet, as not uncommon as the examples above do happen, given time to hash out, "where there's smoke, there's fire" actually does end up being proven correct on a fairly regular basis.

:shrug:

Click to expand...

I think that was the whole premise behind many of the Clintons scandals. So I think it only holds water if it's against the D's. If it's against the R's then you're making things up. Fake news, vaporware.

Slyfox696 said:

Many times it all depends on the situation and who is telling there is a fire. It goes to past credibility, possible motivations, etc. Each situation is different.
Yes, because when President Trump's son admits to intending to collude with Russia, and takes along top advisors of the campaign with him, after which Russia increasingly steps up their election attacks against Clinton, that CLEARLY tells me there's absolutely no way President Trump ever colluded with Russia...

Click to expand...

It is not collusiin to accept evidence of criminal behavior. As it is, he didn't even get the information to the best of our knowledge. All else remains slander and harms the liberals' position. Or do you have more than the evidence published. I would be the first to revise my opinion on real proof. But the slander has been sadly lacking of such.

joG said:

It is not collusiin to accept evidence of criminal behavior.

Click to expand...

It is clear intent to collude when you go to a meeting with a foreign government attorney whose government who supports you and will provide "official documents" for the expressed intent of finding damaging info on your opponent. That is CLEAR intent to collude.

As it is, he didn't even get the information to the best of our knowledge.

Click to expand...

Says who? The person who intended to collude in the first place? So what you're saying is we are finding ourselves in the rare instance of where the accused claims he's not guilty, even after having not told the truth about the situation multiple times? Well, I'M convinced. :roll:

We'll just ignore all the evidence which comes after, specifically Russia's clear intent to sway the election in President Trump's favor. We have an accused who says he didn't do it. What more do we need?

To quote My Cousin Vinny: "Judge Chamerlain Haller: Once again, the communication process has broken down between us. It appears to me that you want to skip the arraignment process, go directly to trial, skip that, and get a dismissal. Well, I'm not about to revamp the entire judicial process just because you find yourself in the unique position of defending clients who say they didn't do it."

I would be the first to revise my opinion on real proof.

Click to expand...

And yet, you continually ignore the real proof that arguably the three highest members of the Trump campaign went to a meeting with a "Russian government attorney" for the expressed intent to collude with a Russian government who supported Trump, a meeting which, on multiple occasions, they did not tell the truth about existing, shortly before the Russian government actively took measures to interfere in our election on behalf of President Trump. Instead of paying attention those indisputable facts, you cling to "clients who say they didn't do it".

I don't think you're telling the truth when you say you'll be the first to revise your opinion.

radcen said:

For anyone who might be interested...

Difference Between Cliché and Idiom

Click to expand...

So true. So I was wrong to check 'other' in the poll choices.

The correct answer is 'sometimes'.

You can have useful fires that create virtually no smoke: a welder, a Bunsen burner, a gas cook stove, etc.

A forest or grassland wild fire or the Chicago or San Francisco fires will create a tremendous amount of smoke while the fires themselves can be of huge, devastating, even deadly consequence.

A large pile of old tires on fire will produce massive amounts of smoke visible for many miles, but the consequence is of limited and minor scope and importance.

But a smoke bomb or theatrical smoke on stage involves no fire at all. Such are deliberately used as an annoyance or for for special effect, to create an impression, or make somebody believe there is a fire when none exists.

radcen said:

Is "Where there's smoke, there's fire" valid?

We see this concept... seldom outright named as such, but it's there... in judicial and criminal cases where people will believe a flurry of accusations over evidence to the contrary all the time. For example: In a jury murder trial, a known ciminal can have piles of evidence pointing toward innocence in this particular crime, yet some people will actually say things like, "Well I'm sure they're guilty of something somewhere else." to justify their guilty verdict/vote.

Another example: Even after-the-fact, a person who spent a decade in prison before being exonerated is still met with skepticism by large portions of the general public. Their exoneration is dismissed as, "They had to have been guilty, they just beat the system with cheap lawyer tricks and loopholes."

Both of those are variations of the "Where there's smoke, there's fire" mindset. Physical evidence is not as important as circumstantial evidence, or even desired belief.

Yet, as not uncommon as the examples above do happen, given time to hash out, "where there's smoke, there's fire" actually does end up being proven correct on a fairly regular basis.

:shrug:

Click to expand...

Is the "smoke" enough to outright prove the existence of the "fire"? No.

Is it enough to merit a closer look to see if there is a fire? Yes.

It's not an ironclad proposition. But smoke is usually a fairly good indicator.

Slyfox696 said:

It is clear intent to collude when you go to a meeting with a foreign government attorney whose government who supports you and will provide "official documents" for the expressed intent of finding damaging info on your opponent. That is CLEAR intent to collude.
Says who? The person who intended to collude in the first place? So what you're saying is we are finding ourselves in the rare instance of where the accused claims he's not guilty, even after having not told the truth about the situation multiple times? Well, I'M convinced. :roll:

We'll just ignore all the evidence which comes after, specifically Russia's clear intent to sway the election in President Trump's favor. We have an accused who says he didn't do it. What more do we need?

To quote My Cousin Vinny: "Judge Chamerlain Haller: Once again, the communication process has broken down between us. It appears to me that you want to skip the arraignment process, go directly to trial, skip that, and get a dismissal. Well, I'm not about to revamp the entire judicial process just because you find yourself in the unique position of defending clients who say they didn't do it."

And yet, you continually ignore the real proof that arguably the three highest members of the Trump campaign went to a meeting with a "Russian government attorney" for the expressed intent to collude with a Russian government who supported Trump, a meeting which, on multiple occasions, they did not tell the truth about existing, shortly before the Russian government actively took measures to interfere in our election on behalf of President Trump. Instead of paying attention those indisputable facts, you cling to "clients who say they didn't do it".

I don't think you're telling the truth when you say you'll be the first to revise your opinion.

Click to expand...

To also quote 'My Cousin Vinny'..."everything that guy said is bull****"

How's that case turn out?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

VanceMack said:

To also quote 'My Cousin Vinny'..."everything that guy said is bull****"

Click to expand...

"Sustained. Counselor's entire opening statement, with the exception of "Thank you" will be stricken from the record."

How's that case turn out?

Click to expand...

You mean the completely fictional case? It turns out people cared more about facts than what they desperately wanted to believe and used facts to come to a truthful conclusion about the case.

Are you willing to do that? Are you willing to acknowledge the fact Trump Jr. et al went to a meeting with the intent to collude with an "Russian government lawyer" who represented the Russian government which supported candidate Trump shortly before Russia began interfering in our election on behalf of Donald Trump?

Do you accept those things as facts?