We observed that the house was generally filthy and unkempt, and there were signs of drug use in the living room. When we first contacted the victim’s father, he seemed nonresponsive and hostile. He initially refused to answer simple questions and displayed a general distrust of law enforcement personnel. He was a parolee with a history of drug use, domestic violence, and felonious behavior. At first glance, one might suspect that this man was capable of doing the unthinkable.
We called the coroner as we began to collect evidence and photograph everything in sight, and we didn’t touch the body until the coroner’s investigator arrived. Only then were we able to get a clear picture of the baby’s condition. As we removed the bedding around the body and examined the child more closely, we discovered that he was surprisingly clean and tidy. He looked healthy and well fed. He was lying next to a bottle of fresh formula, cleanly dressed in a new diaper and pajama suit. His hair was washed, and he was lying next to a long pillow that had been propped up against one side of his torso. A second long pillow appeared to have been propped against the other side of the baby, but this pillow was now lying on the floor. The baby was lying, facedown, on the bed, a short distance from the first pillow. There were no signs of neglect or abuse on the child, not a single bruise or suspicious mark.
In our follow-up interview of the baby’s father, Al came to learn that the child was his greatest treasure. In spite of his many admitted failures and his emotionless, hardened exterior, the man’s one joy was the baby. He carefully slept with the infant every night and was so concerned about sudden infant death syndrome that he placed the child, faceup, between two large pillows next to him on the bed so he could monitor his breathing. On this particular night, one of the two pillows rolled off the bed, and the baby managed to roll over on his stomach. Given everything we saw at the scene and the condition of the baby, we ruled his asphyxiation an accidental death. Al agreed that this was not a homicide.
THINKING LIKE A DETECTIVE
Inferences and Reasonable Inferences
To infer means “to gather in.” In logic, inference refers to the process of collecting data from numerous sources, and then drawing conclusions on the basis of this evidence. In legal terms, an inference is a “deduction of fact that may logically and reasonably be drawn from another fact or group of facts found or otherwise established” (Cal Evid Code § 600 [b]).
In addition, courts across the land instruct jurors to draw “reasonable inferences.” These are described as “conclusions which are regarded as logical by reasonable people in the light of their experience in life.” Lannon v. Hogan, 719 F.2d 518, 521, (1st Cir. Mass. 1983).
As investigators, we just employed a methodology known as abductive reasoning (also known as “inferring to the most reasonable explanation”) in order to determine what we had at this scene. We collected all the evidential data and made a mental list of the raw facts. We then developed a list of the possible explanations that might account for the scene in general. Finally, we compared the evidence to the potential explanations and determined which explanation was, in fact, the most reasonable inference in light of the evidence.
As it turns out, detectives aren’t the only people who use abductive reasoning in an effort to figure out what really happened. Historians, scientists, and all the rest of us (regardless of vocation or avocation) have experience as detectives. In fact, most of us have become accomplished investigators as a matter of necessity and practice, and we’ve been employing abductive reasoning without giving it much thought. I had a partner once who gave me a bit of parental advice. Dave was a few years older than I was, and he had been working patrol for many years. He was a seasoned and salty officer, streetwise, cynical, and infinitely practical. He had two children who were already married when mine were still in high school. He was full of sage advice (along with some other stuff).
“Jim, let me tell ya something about kids. I love my two boys. I remember when they were in high school and used to go out with their friends on the weekends. I would stay up late and wait for them to come home. As soon as they walked in the door, I would get up off the couch and give them a big hug.”
This struck me as a bit odd, given what I knew about Dave. He seldom exposed a sensitive side. “Wow, Dave, I have to tell you that I don’t usually think of you as a touchy-feely kind of guy.”
“I’m not, you moron,” Dave said, returning to form. “I hug them as tightly as possible so I can get close enough to smell them. I’m not a fool. I can tell if they’ve been smoking dope or drinking within seconds.”
You see, Dave was an evidentialist, and he applied his reasoning skills to his experience as a parent. The smell of alcohol or marijuana would serve as evidence that he would later take into consideration as he was evaluating the possible activities of his children. Dave was thinking abductively. I bet you’ve done something similar in your role as a parent, a spouse, a son, or a daughter.
DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN POSSIBLE
AND REASONABLE
Speculation
Speculation is dangerously nonevidential by its very definition:
“Reasoning based on inconclusive evidence; conjecture or supposition” (The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, 2003).
“A hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing, usually with little hard evidence” (Collins Thesaurus of the English Language—Complete and Unabridged 2nd Edition, 1995, 2002).
All of us have learned the intuitive difference between possible and reasonable. When it comes right down to it, just about anything is possible. You may not even be reading this book right now, even though you think that you are. It’s possible that aliens covertly kidnapped you last night and have induced a dreamlike, out-of-body, extraterrestrial hallucination. While you think this experience of reading is real, you may actually wake up tomorrow morning to discover yourself in an alien spaceship. But let’s face it, that’s not reasonable, is it?
While it’s interesting to imagine the possibilities, it’s important to return eventually to what’s reasonable, especially when the truth is at stake. That’s why judges across the land carefully instruct juries to refrain from what is known as “speculation” when considering the explanations for what has occurred in a case. Jurors are told that they “must use only the evidence that is presented”5 during the trial. They are told to resist the temptation to consider the attorney’s opinions about unsupported possibilities and to ignore unsupported speculation wherever they may hear it.
We also tell jurors to resist the impulse to stray from the evidence offered and ask questions like “What if …?” or “Isn’t it possible that …?” when these questions are driven by evidentially unsupported speculation. They must instead limit themselves to what’s reasonable in light of the evidence that has been presented to them.
In the end, our criminal courts place a high standard on reasonableness, and that’s important as we think about the process of abductive reasoning. This rational approach to determining truth will help us come to the most reasonable conclusion in light of the evidence. It can be applied to more than criminal cases; we can apply the process of abduction to our spiritual investigations as well. But first, let’s examine the concept with a real-life example from the world of homicide investigations.
ABDUCTIVE REASONING AND DEAD GUYS
Let’s use the example of another death scene to fully illustrate the process. You and I have been called out to “dead-body scene”—a location where a deceased person has been discovered and the circumstances seem rather suspicious. While scenes like this are sometimes homicides, they are often less sinister; there are a few other explanations. Deaths fall into one of four categories: natural deaths, accidental deaths, suicides, or homicides. It’s our job to figure out which of the four explanations is the most reasonable in the following scenario.
&n
bsp; We have been called to the scene of a DBR (a “Dead Body Report”) to assist patrol officers who have already arrived and secured the location. Here are the facts we are given when we enter the room: A young man was discovered on the floor of his apartment when his roommate returned from work. The man was lying facedown. The man was cold to the touch, nonresponsive, and stiff. Okay, given these minimal facts, it is clear that we actually do have a dead guy, but which of the four potential explanations is most reasonable given the facts? Is this death a natural death, an accident, a suicide, or a homicide?
Given the minimal facts so far, all four of the potential explanations are still in play, aren’t they? Unless we have something more to add evidentially, it will be difficult to decide if this case should be worked as a homicide or simply documented as something other than criminal.
Let’s change the scenario slightly and add a new piece of evidence to see if it will help. Imagine that we entered the room and observed that the man was lying in a pool of his own blood and that this blood seemed to be coming from the area of his abdomen (under his body). These are the new minimal facts: (1) a man is dead, (2) lying facedown on the floor, (3) in a pool of blood that seems to be coming from the front of the man’s lower abdomen. Given this new set of facts, is there any direction our investigation might take? Are any of our four explanations more or less reasonable?
Given the new evidence, we may be comfortable in removing the natural death explanation from our consideration. After all, what kind of natural event in the human body would cause someone to bleed from his lower abdomen? Without an orifice from which to bleed naturally, this does seem to be an unfounded conclusion to draw; a natural death might be possible, but it isn’t reasonable.
What about the other three explanations? Could this still be an accidental death? Sure, the man could have tripped and fallen on something (we wouldn’t know this until we turned him over). What about a suicide or a homicide? It seems that these three remaining explanations are still reasonable in light of what limited evidence we have about this case. Until we learn a bit more, it will be difficult to decide which of these final three options is the most reasonable.
Let’s add a new dimension to the case. Imagine that we enter the room and see the man lying on the floor in a pool of his own blood, but now we observe a large knife stuck in his lower back. This presents us with a new set of facts: (1) the man is dead, (2) lying facedown on the floor, (3) in a pool of blood, and (4) there is a knife stuck in the man’s lower back.
The presence of a knife in the victim’s back seems to eliminate as unreasonable the conclusion that he died accidentally. It’s hard to imagine an accident that would account for this fact; an accidental death might be possible, but it’s not reasonable. If nothing else, the presence of the knife most certainly affirms the unreasonable nature of a natural death, doesn’t it? The most reasonable remaining explanations are either suicide or homicide, and suicide seems less and less likely, given the fact that the victim’s wound is located on his back. But since the wound is located in the lower portion of his back (within his reach), let’s leave this option on the table for now.
Imagine, however, that a new fact has entered into our scenario. Imagine that we discover three extra wounds on the victim’s upper back, in addition to the one we observed earlier. Our fact list now includes (1) a man who is dead, (2) lying facedown on the floor, (3) in a pool of blood, (4) with multiple knife wounds on his back. Our reasonable explanations are dwindling, aren’t they?
In this situation, natural death, accidental death, and suicide seem out of the question. While someone may argue that they are still possible, few would recognize them as reasonable. The most reasonable conclusion in light of the evidence is simply that this man was murdered. As responsible detectives, you and I would have no choice but to initiate a homicide investigation.
MAKING MORE DIFFICULT DISTINCTIONS
We just used abductive reasoning to determine which explanation most reasonably explained what happened at this scene. It was simple, right? But what if the scenario is more ambiguous than our dead-body scene? What if two competing explanations seem similarly reasonable? Are there any rules or principles that might help us distinguish between the most reasonable explanation and a close contender? Well, over the years, I’ve given this a lot of thought as I’ve investigated potential homicide suspects in cold-case murders. When considering two or more closely competing explanations for a particular event (or suspects in a murder), I now assess the following factors (keep in mind that these terms are mine and may not reflect the language of other philosophers or thinkers in the area of abductive reasoning):
THE TRUTH MUST BE FEASIBLE
(The explanation has explanatory viability)
Before I even begin to think about the evidence related to a particular murder suspect, I need to make sure that he or she was available to commit the crime in the first place. I investigate the alibis of potential suspects, eliminating those who are simply impossibilities based on confirmed alibis.
THE TRUTH WILL USUALLY BE STRAIGHTFORWARD
(The explanation demonstrates explanatory simplicity)
When considering a number of suspects, I look for the man or woman who most simply accounts for the evidence. If one person can account for the evidence (rather than some theory that requires three or four different potential suspects to account for the same evidence), he or she is most likely the killer.
THE TRUTH SHOULD BE EXHAUSTIVE
(The explanation displays explanatory depth)
I also consider the suspect who most exhaustively explains the evidence that I have in a case. While a particular suspect may explain one, two, or three pieces of evidence, the suspect who accounts for most (or all) of the evidence is typically the killer.
THE TRUTH MUST BE LOGICAL
(The explanation possesses explanatory consistency)
The truth is rational; for this reason the truth about the identity of my killer must also make sense. Suspects commit murders for reasons of one kind or another, even if these reasons seem insufficient to you and me. The true killer will make sense to the members of the jury once they understand his or her misguided motivation. Conversely, some candidates will appear logically inconsistent because they lack motive altogether.
THE TRUTH WILL BE SUPERIOR
(The explanation achieves explanatory superiority)
Finally, I recognize that one of my suspects is unique in the superior way that he or she accounts for the evidence. In essence, this particular suspect is a far better choice when compared to other candidates who are offered. The quality of his or her connection to the evidence is better. When I see this characteristic of explanatory superiority, I know I have my killer.
When a suspect meets these five criteria, I am confident that I have reached the most reasonable conclusion; I know I have identified the killer.
AN ANCIENT DEATH-SCENE INVESTIGATION
Now it’s time to apply this form of reasoning to a death scene that has been the topic of discussion for over two thousand years. What happened to Jesus of Nazareth? How can we explain His empty tomb? Did His disciples steal His body? Was He only injured on the cross and later recovered? Did He actually die and resurrect from the dead? We can approach these questions as detectives, using abductive reasoning.
The question of Jesus’s fate might be compared to our dead-body investigation. We examined our death scene by first identifying the characteristics of the scene (the facts and pieces of evidence). We next acknowledged a number of potential explanations that might account for what we observed. Let’s apply that same approach to the issue of the alleged death and resurrection of Jesus.
The Minimal-Facts Approach
Gary Habermas (distinguished research professor at Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary) has popularized the minimal-facts approach to examinin
g the resurrection by identifying those aspects of the resurrection story that are accepted by the vast majority of scholars and experts (from Christians to nonbelievers). This list of accepted “minimal facts” can then be used as the basis for our process of abductive reasoning.
Dr. Gary Habermas6 and Professor Mike Licona7 have taken the time to identify the “minimal facts” (or evidences) related to the resurrection. While there are many claims in the New Testament related to this important event, not all are accepted by skeptics and wary investigators. Habermas and Licona surveyed the most respected and well-established historical scholars and identified a number of facts that are accepted by the vast majority of researchers in the field.
They limited their list to those facts that were strongly supported (using the criteria of textual critics) and to those facts that were granted by virtually all scholars (from skeptics to conservative Christians). Habermas and Licona eventually wrote about their findings in The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus.8
As a skeptic myself, I formed a list of New Testament claims as I first investigated the resurrection. When I was an unbeliever, I found four of Habermas and Licona’s minimal facts to be the most substantiated by both friends and foes of Christianity:
Cold-Case Christianity Page 3