- Joined
- Sep 3, 2011
- Messages
- 34,817
- Reaction score
- 18,576
- Location
- Look to your right... I'm that guy.
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
Is "Where there's smoke, there's fire" valid?
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:
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.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.”
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: