Reply #54: Observation true, inference possible. [View All]

[Igel]

"everyone there witnessed the presence of the guns, meaning that the assassins had help from the police since they would have needed official help in getting those past the security check points"

It's one problem with this debate: There are facts, but few actually mention them per se. There are possible interpretations which presume the facts, but we only bandy about interpretations. We seldom discuss what the status of facts are, all the facts, and all the possible implications given the welter of conflicting reports.

In this case: Lots of people witnessed the presence of the guns. That doesn't mean the assassins had help from the police. We've heard reports that some--maybe not all--of the police abandoned their security posts. But we've also seen the route, and she was outside the security cordon when she was shot at.

That makes for a problem. First, we have nobody saying he needed to pass a checkpoint to get to the assassination scene. If no checkpoints, then no help needed in getting a gun there. Second, we have a report that at least some guards abandoned their checkposts after her speech "droned" on. Did they leave on purpose or just because the rally was winding to a close? And did one abandon the access route that the gunman took? Third, we've heard PPP folk say that security was lax, and she complained about it before this rally. Do we assume that lax security before was simply negligence, and lax security this time was conspiracy? The only reason for assuming the change is to get to the interpretation, and that's not enough, at least for logic. For abductive reasoning, sure, but abduction proves nothing and needs to be subjected to a lot of critical thinking, *after* there's evidence. Bhutto's assassination doesn't serve as evidence.

So, yeah. The gun was there. But did the gunman get help? That needs some proof. As with a lot of things, there may never be proof, but there will always be assertions. The assertions will fall into one of two categories: Possible, but unproven hypotheses (and they will be treated as such by their proponents); or beliefs (inadequate proof and abductive reasoning taken to yield firm conclusion, conclusion then taken as fact).