Kavanaugh Can Join Thomas.

[Mister Agenda]

I find it amusing that the same people who think we have an accurate account of the life and teachings of some rabbi who crossed the Romans when we have no evidence that any of it was written down until decades after the supposed events and no original manuscripts at all, just copies of copies; think that reconstructing what happened at a party in the eighties from eyewitness accounts is just impossible.

[Angrboda]

Are you, in this particular case, inclined to believe that significant details of Ms. Blasey Ford's recollection of events years later to her therapist are sufficiently delayed to introduce serious doubt that either: a) a sexual assault took place, or b) that sexual assault was committed by judge Kavanaugh?

...Regarding whether it was Kavanaugh - yes, serious doubt. It wouldn't surprise me if Ford was assaulted, but by someone else.

On what do you rest that doubt?

[Aroura]

I don't know how to break up the quotes for better responses. Something I need to learn to do!

[RoadRunner79]

I find it amusing that the same people who think we have an accurate account of the life and teachings of some rabbi who crossed the Romans when we have no evidence that any of it was written down until decades after the supposed events and no original manuscripts at all, just copies of copies; think that reconstructing what happened at a party in the eighties from eyewitness accounts is just impossible.

I don’t. However it may be pointed out that it was a party that involved drinking of which the accuser may likely have been drinking also. Which may also bring up questions of identification. Did she know the accused before, after? The actual testimony thus far, seems to be short on details, over the accusations. And your questions could also be reversed. Which was my original contention.

[Foxaèr]

I don't know how to break up the quotes for better responses.  Something I need to learn to do!

Copy and paste this portion of the person's post:

(quote='Aroura' pid='1817015' dateline='1537541569')
but brackets instead of parenthesis. End quote before using it again for the next section.

[Angrboda]

They have delayed, and have offered to hear out the accuser.  I don't think that it is a reasonable precedent to delay everything, because of a eleventh hour accusation.  I think that this could encourage unfalsifiable claims, for just that purpose.

I think that such things need no encouragement. Even if they would, that is no reason to discourage them on its face. As noted by multiple authors, there is plenty of time for a fuller investigation, the Republicans don't seem to want that solely because if the charges are substantiated, that will bork that or any nomination until after the election. That is not a valid reason for not pursuing a fuller investigation. The question is not simply whether such an investigation might delay a vote on his nomination, but whether that delay is justified or not. I think it comical that we are 6 weeks away from the election, and Republicans are complaining that Feinstein brought the matter forward when she did rather than a mere seven days earlier.

It's rather clear that the Republican complaints are being made because they fear that Kavanaugh's nomination may not survive the election, rather than any substantive argument against either Feinstein's timing or the need for an investigation. The Republicans are trying to, once again, railroad this nomination through, in spite of the possibility that Kavanaugh is unfit to serve, and any facts that get in the way of that effort are viewed with suspicion and unsupported allegations. The cheek of Republicans to complain about Ms. Blasey Ford's accusations possibly not being well supported in order to make substantially unsupported allegations about Democrats simply because it interferes with them getting what they want is remarkable.

[Mister Agenda]

If someone accused me of attempted rape, I would be delighted for the FBI to investigate it, because I know when they got to the bottom of it, there won't be anything there. And if I was a witness to the supposed attempted rape and knew that's not what happened at all, I would be happy to testify under oath to that effect.

[RoadRunner79]

I think that the "Extraordinary Claims" mantra while it make for a catchy turn of phrase, has little or no epistemological foundation or basis.   It's little more than special pleading, without some justification for the difference in reasoning. 

I think a firm foundation for it can be found in Bayes theorem, but it's far from obvious.  If you want to re-open that thread, I'll do my best to explain.

If you have something to say (add) then feel free to make a thread.  I would agree, that is probably venturing quite a bit away from this thread.

[downbeatplumb]

Here's what I see.
A woman has accused a man of sexual assault.
Some people do not want to investigate it because he is "their guy".
Everything else is irrelevant.

[Angrboda]

I think a firm foundation for it can be found in Bayes theorem, but it's far from obvious.  If you want to re-open that thread, I'll do my best to explain.

If you have something to say (add) then feel free to make a thread.  I would agree, that is probably venturing quite a bit away from this thread.

Well in the interim, let's just agree to disagree. The saying that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" may or may not be justified. At minimum, it seems to accurately capture a common intuition. Like the Blasey Ford allegations, people seem to object to it because it interferes with their chosen narrative. Whether that bias is or isn't abetted by the facts remains to be seen. Given that many of the same people will also argue in favor of the intuitions which are used by reformed epistemology to justify their claims as well, I have a strong suspicion their complaints are nothing more than a hypocritical attempt to shoot the messenger.