Skip to main content

Understanding the Murdaugh Guilty Verdict

 

Understanding the Murdaugh verdict. This is not half-baked psychology, but rather a rather new form of philosophy. 

Guilty as charged came down the verdict – and in record time for a six-week trial. How did they do it?  You would think with such a lengthy trial it might take at minimum several days simply to review testimony, if only to confirm some agreement on the testimony presented. You might say they made an emotional response to their feelings. You could say having listened to all that testimony for weeks, their opinion about guilt or innocence evolved over time. You could even think the evidence was overwhelmingly complex. Thus, they really didn’t understand what they heard.

In fact, all are probably correct. Yet, there seemed to be no analytical examination or even review of the facts of the case, being the verdict came so quickly. So what did they do? What they did is what philosophers have been studying for several decades. They used epistemic logic.

That is, the jury applied the operators of “knowing” and “believing.” In brief, consider the operator of ‘Knowing.” Define K(a, p), where Player a knows proposition p is true. Similarly, B(a, p) means Player a believes proposition p is correct. For example, Player a knows p, i.e. the dangers of climate change are correct. Or B(a, p) means Player a believes p, i.e. Murdaugh is guilty. That’s it, no further discussion is necessary, except possibly for consistency with other determinations if they are even considered. These functions transcend logical inference. We’ll not go into the many details of this logic, but to indicate these epistemic logics are important also in computer science.

Either of these is likely how the jury resolved this highly complex, multi-faceted trial. You could call it “gut” instinct or just a “sense” of the truth. Possibly. You and I apply these operators, K and B, all the time. How many times have you said, “I just know it.” Justification is not needed. No scientist pursues a line of reasoning thinking “maybe it works this way.” You must commit. Doubt deprecates progress. Lawyers parade alternative theories to juries hoping one of them appeals to their “Knowing” or “Believing” operators.

You may have thought reasoning is limited to “if this, then that” Not so. Even the logicians/philosophers recognize how the human mind works.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Please Comment.

Popular posts from this blog

Behavioral Science and Problem-Solving

I.                                       I.                 Introduction.                Concerning our general behavior, it’s high about time we all had some understanding of how we operate on ourselves, and it is just as important how we are operated on by others. This is the wheelhouse of behavioral sciences. It is a vast subject. It touches our lives constantly. It’s influence is pervasive and can be so subtle we never notice it. Behavioral sciences profoundly affect our ability and success at problem-solving, from the elementary level to highly complex wicked problems. This is discussed in Section IV. We begin with the basics of behavioral sciences, Section II, and then through the lens of multiple categories and examples, Section III. II.     ...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Lemming Instinct

  In certain vital domains, a pervasive mediocrity among practitioners can stifle genuine advancement. When the intellectual output of a field is predominantly average, it inevitably produces research of corresponding quality. Nevertheless, some of these ideas, by sheer chance or perhaps through effective dissemination, will inevitably gain traction. A significant number of scholars and researchers will gravitate towards these trends, contributing to and propagating further work along these established lines. Such a trajectory allows an initially flawed concept to ascend to the status of mainstream orthodoxy. However, over an extended period, these prevailing ideas invariably fail to withstand rigorous scrutiny; they are ultimately and conclusively disproven. The disheartening pattern then reveals itself: rather than genuine progress, an equally unvalidated or incorrect idea often supplants the discredited one, swiftly establishing its own dominance. This cycle perpetuates, ensurin...
Post a Comment
Read more

Principles of Insufficiency and Sufficiency

   The principles we use but don't know it.  1.      Introduction . Every field, scientific or otherwise, rests on foundational principles—think buoyancy, behavior, or democracy. Here, we explore a unique subset: principles modified by "insufficiency" and "sufficiency." While you may never have heard of them, you use them often. These terms frame principles that blend theory, practicality, and aspiration, by offering distinct perspectives. Insufficiency often implies inaction unless justified, while sufficiency suggests something exists or must be done. We’ll examine key examples and introduce a new principle with potential significance. As a principle of principles of these is that something or some action is not done enough while others may be done too much. The first six (§2-6) of our principles are in the literature, and you can easily search them online. The others are relatively new, but fit the concepts in the real world. At times, these pri...
Post a Comment
Read more