Truth or Scam? (Part 1)
Tim Cumper says “I want to give my logic an airing – sit back and examine it – to see where the weaknesses are.”
There are no half-measures – no in-betweens – what I am trying to determine, the truth I am trying to arrive at – is either one scenario or the other.
Either the story I was told, the basic scenario – is true – or it is not true – either the girl did become pregnant and did unfortunately suffer a ruptured ampulla, left fallopian tube – in an ectopic pregnancy – or she did not.
The difficulty arises in trying to decipher the truth from all the information received – for that information remains precisely the same, and arrives in precisely the same manner in either case – truth or falsehood.
If true then a focus was being placed on collecting money – for a real and unfortunate event, which all information received accurately refers to, describes and supports.
If false then the focus was entirely on collecting money – and the events described were completely fictitious – and all information is only attempting to portray a genuine event.
Unfortunately, supporting material received over the Internet, at best, can only be token – tokens, symbolic of a genuine, supporting provenance.
The tokens themselves are entirely meaningless when disconnected from this provenance – and it is this disconnection which occurs when trust is withdrawn – the provenance itself, the surrounding context, the history, the character of the people involved – everything is removed from the generous, perfunctory benefit of doubt & is honestly revealed as a questionable unknown.
When this occurs – everything becomes perfectly ambiguous – both alternative scenarios, truth or falsehood, are equally unknown – and all information and token evidence received is rendered useless by virtue of this acquired ambiguity.
Even the search for plausibility suffers from a serious disconnection – mainly perhaps because the evaluation of a likely motive or intent is now confused by ambiguous alternatives of human nature.
However, in plausibility there are no half-measures either, in the particular situation under discussion – there are only two choices for consideration, accompanying truth and falsehood – two choices describing the human characteristics behind motive and intent – for either alternative.
In this case – it is either greed – or the consequences of misfortune – a medical & emotional tragedy.
However, both alternatives were presented with the distinct focus on only a financial solution.
When it comes to the tenuous subject of “proof” – supporting either alternative scenario, truth or falsehood – we can state clearly that proof of truth should be demonstrable in countless ways – a truth describing a real event which touched many lives, which generated many more events – like the ripples on a pond – naturally expanding – generating, in this particular case – many material items, naturally and honestly connected to a real provenance, unfolding for a considerable time, amongst real people.
Proof of falsehood however is only demonstrable by unveiling motive & intent – for falsehood is not accompanied by a real event – there will be no supporting material whatsoever, no genuine provenance – it is entirely lacking.
If there arrives the necessity to provide supporting material – it must be generated specifically, artificially – and is generally done only in response to demand.
Falsehood survives best in a vacuum – it does not prefer to generate cause for possible contention over detail, or cause for likely discovery – it prefers not to leave a false trail giving rise to the possibility of error.
When pushed, it prefers word-of-mouth to writing – it prefers the telephone to email.
It begrudges & minimises the provision of false support for its pretended truth.
However, all these preferences must be balanced by the degree of threat posed by discovery of this falsehood – and by the likelihood and consequences of exposure.
If this threat is imminent and serious enough – it is quite possible that
a minimal provision of tokens may be artificially generated, to satisfy specific demand – tokens which, when produced, are indistinguishable from those provided by a connection with a genuine provenance.
It is the reality of a situation which motivates behaviour – this actuality may be concealed behind an advertised reality – or it may coincide with reality – but in either case, behaviour will flow from the actuality.
In the case of falsehood – behaviour will attempt to mimic the appropriate behaviour of the advertised situation – and in the case of truth, behaviour will flow instinctively and naturally from the events themselves.
Behaviour and shifts in attitude are only indicated remotely by the arrival of information. It is only this remotely observed information, and the manner of its arrival which may help to reveal the actual cause as being appropriate or not, to the advertised reality. Much can possibly be determined by these responses, in relation to the shifting dynamic of communication, and the initiatory actions which produce these responses – whereby these actions may appear to reveal increased suspicion or threat of discovery of falsehood. These are exchanges in which subtle shifts of dynamic are intuitively observed at the time – but may be overlooked or ignored when reviewed later.
When examining such a situation remotely, perhaps it is possible to devise a probability scale of sorts.
To determine the presence of falsehood it is therefore necessary to demonstrate the implausibilty of the pretended truth.
And visa versa – to determine the presence of truth it is necessary to demonstrate the implausibility of falsehood.
However, much depends on the time and effort invested in these demonstrations, and in which direction it is spent.
To only present one side of the equation – to ardently seek to demonstrate only one side of the equation will not produce a conclusion of balance – even hypothetically – and either alternative must be regarded strictly as hypothetical, paying special heed to any signs of cognitive bias until proved.
This is not to suggest that anything can be proved by this method at all – but dealing with a situation remotely offers no options, except to examine probability.
Even this causes us to enter the loop of ambiguity – because plausibility rests entirely with a presumption of motive, intent, and therefore character. (Cont’d in PART 2)