We suppose ourselves to possess unqualified scientific knowledge of a thing, as opposed to knowing it in the accidental way in which the sophist knows, when we think that we know the cause on which the fact depends, as the cause of that fact and of no other, and, further, that the fact could not be other than it is.
Now, I suppose its possible that Margaresto only attempted to kill his opponent via plaster paws when he was caught pad handed against Shane. I also suppose its possible that he didn’t know his hands were filled with cement soaked pads that formed to his knuckles. I know I play the “I didn’t know” card at work because when you work in the public sector its at times easier to apologize then it is to ask for permission.

The problem I have with this notion is in its reasoning and that’s why I quoted Aristotle. If he was about to cheat against a worn out old Shane Mosley then its no giant leap of faith or deductive reasoning to presuppose that he had cheated against a young undefeated world beater in his prime and come to a factual conclusion that he did w/o him being caught. You don’t need the same preponderance of evidence as you do in a murder trial. In this case its the law of “common sense”