Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #501  
Old 12-07-2018, 11:21 AM
Steophan Steophan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 8,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
Deborah Ramirez's testimony is evidence that exists that tends to support the assertion.
No, it doesn't. It says nothing whatsoever about Ford's assertion. It makes it no more or less likely that her assertion is true, and should make us no more or less likely to believe it.
  #502  
Old 12-07-2018, 11:26 AM
Steophan Steophan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 8,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
Two pieces of evidence that both state that a particular individual engaged in a certain type of behavior both corroborate the assertion that that individual engages in that type of behavior. They corroborate each other, and it is not necessary for the events to describe to have happened at the same time or place.
There could be a thousand pieces of evidence that Kavanaugh had abused different women, and all that evidence would be silent on Ford's claim, unless they claim to have been abused at the same place and time.

I hope, should you ever be called for jury service, you disclose your unorthodox understanding of the nature of evidence and proof to the court, so you don't accidentally vote to convict an innocent person.
  #503  
Old 12-07-2018, 11:54 AM
Lance Turbo Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 3,544
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
There could be a thousand pieces of evidence that Kavanaugh had abused different women, and all that evidence would be silent on Ford's claim, unless they claim to have been abused at the same place and time.
The, "same place and time," are not required for corroboration. Please refer to the definition of the term.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
I hope, should you ever be called for jury service, you disclose your unorthodox understanding of the nature of evidence and proof to the court, so you don't accidentally vote to convict an innocent person.
There you go with, "proof," again. This isn't about proof.
  #504  
Old 12-07-2018, 06:54 PM
Steophan Steophan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 8,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
The, "same place and time," are not required for corroboration. Please refer to the definition of the term.
To support a claim that something happened at a particular time and place, it is obviously required. You are fundamentally wrong.

Quote:
There you go with, "proof," again. This isn't about proof.
It is about levels of evidence and support. You fundamentally do not understand how evidence works, what evidence can or cannot support or prove a claim. You think unrelated evidence can corroborate a claim, and in the absence of opposing evidence a corroborated claim is proven to a certain standard, specifically that used for civil matters. "Proof" is not a single, monolithic standard, and is absolutely part of what we are talking about.
  #505  
Old 12-07-2018, 08:15 PM
Lance Turbo Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 3,544
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
You think unrelated evidence can corroborate a claim, and in the absence of opposing evidence a corroborated claim is proven to a certain standard, specifically that used for civil matters.
I don't think this at all. Like not even a little bit.

I think two assertions that a certain individual engaged in a certain type of behavior corroborate each other. The two assertions are not unrelated. The two assertions are connected in two obvious ways: the individual and the type of behavior. Connected, interconnected, associated, linked, coupled,... related.
  #506  
Old 12-08-2018, 06:14 PM
Magiver Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 27,887
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
I don't think this at all. Like not even a little bit.

I think two assertions that a certain individual engaged in a certain type of behavior corroborate each other. The two assertions are not unrelated. The two assertions are connected in two obvious ways: the individual and the type of behavior. Connected, interconnected, associated, linked, coupled,... related.
So if 4 people make unsubstantiated assertions about you then you're twice as guilty? Should your future employer be alerted?
__________________
"People enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought": John Anderson
  #507  
Old 12-08-2018, 06:49 PM
Sam Stone Sam Stone is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 27,330
Also, there is a huge difference between a claim that was reported before the accuser knew of any other accusations, and claims which come AFTER a claim makes national news but which was never documented before. Especially in a highly politicized situation where a person stands to gain personal fame or money for making the claim.

Dr. Ford certainly seems to have been very well compensated for her time and testimony. You can imagine other people thinking about book deals, cushy jobs arranged by a grateful partisan, money from GoFundMe programs, etc. Or even just hero status in his or her political community.

We should always be suspicious of someone who comes forward with an undocumented, unprovable assertion in such circumstances, when they never made the claim before. You simply cannot assume that they are believable, even if a handful of them come forward. Motives should be suspect, and there should always be at least some corroborating evidence before we take their word as gospel. That applies to men or women.
  #508  
Old Yesterday, 10:55 AM
Lance Turbo Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 3,544
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
So if 4 people make unsubstantiated assertions about you then you're twice as guilty?
Guilty? What are talking about?

Two assertions that attribute the same type of behavior to the same individual corroborate each other. Thus each assertion is corroborated.

Four assertions that attribute the same type of behavior to the same individual corroborate each other. Thus each assertion is corroborated.

There is, very deliberately, nothing about guilt in either of those statements.
  #509  
Old Yesterday, 11:17 AM
Lance Turbo Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 3,544
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
Also, there is a huge difference between a claim that was reported before the accuser knew of any other accusations, and claims which come AFTER a claim makes national news but which was never documented before. Especially in a highly politicized situation where a person stands to gain personal fame or money for making the claim.
There may be a huge difference between these things, but that difference is not that we use different definitions of corroborated for the two situations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
Dr. Ford certainly seems to have been very well compensated for her time and testimony.
Not to my knowledge. I could be wrong. Seems to me like her life has been turned upside down and may never get back to normal. Also, even if she has made billions off of this, that has nothing to do with whether or any of her assertions have been corroborated.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
Motives should be suspect, and there should always be at least some corroborating evidence before we take their word as gospel. That applies to men or women.
There is corroborating evidence in this case and as far as I can tell no one is suggesting that anyone take anyone's word as gospel.

Even is someone is shady as fuck and has every reason to lie, their testimony is evidence. And evidence that tends to support an assertion is corroboration even if we have suspicions.

Discussion of motives and suspicions is fun and all, but it really has nothing to do with corroboration. Please refer to the definition of corroboration. It does not contain any language that indicates that motives or suspicious are required or even relevant.
  #510  
Old Yesterday, 11:32 AM
Steophan Steophan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 8,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
Two assertions that attribute the same type of behavior to the same individual corroborate each other. Thus each assertion is corroborated.
False.

Quote:
Four assertions that attribute the same type of behavior to the same individual corroborate each other. Thus each assertion is corroborated.
False.

Quote:
There is, very deliberately, nothing about guilt in either of those statements.
False.

Please stop repeating statements that you know to be false.
  #511  
Old Yesterday, 11:36 AM
Steophan Steophan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 8,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
Please refer to the definition of corroboration.
Here it is, for those playing along at home. Be sure to click on the "synonyms" section, at look for the short word beginning with "p" towards the end, one of the ones Mr Turbo claims is irrelevant to corroboration.
  #512  
Old Yesterday, 11:46 AM
Magiver Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 27,887
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
Guilty? What are talking about?

Two assertions that attribute the same type of behavior to the same individual corroborate each other. Thus each assertion is corroborated.

Four assertions that attribute the same type of behavior to the same individual corroborate each other. Thus each assertion is corroborated.

There is, very deliberately, nothing about guilt in either of those statements.
Yes, there is implied guilt when you say something has been corroborated. correct me if I'm wrong but people have insisted kavanaugh shouldn't be a Supreme Court judge because he's been accused of something heinous. Some have even said there's a shit-ton of evidence to that effect even though there no verifiable evidence to corroborate it.

If a statement is not corroborated with solid evidence it cannot be corroborated by another statement also lacking verifiable evidence.
__________________
"People enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought": John Anderson
  #513  
Old Yesterday, 12:29 PM
Lance Turbo Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 3,544
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
Please stop repeating statements that you know to be false.
Each of these statements is a direct consequence of a straightforward rigorous application of the definition of corroborated. None of them are false.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
Here it is, for those playing along at home. Be sure to click on the "synonyms" section, at look for the short word beginning with "p" towards the end, one of the ones Mr Turbo claims is irrelevant to corroboration.
I went to a great deal of trouble to establish a mutually agreeable definition of corroborated for the purposes of this thread. That definition does not include the word proof. The definition you linked to does not contain the word proof. Some other thing you click on when you go to the definition of the word corroborated that you linked to does include the word proof, but that doesn't tell us about the carefully established definition of corroboration that we are using in this discussion.

Furthermore, way upthread I said the thing that was leading many of you to incorrect conclusions was that you were conflating 'corroborated' with 'proved'. I was assured that that was in no way the case and that it I was the one that didn't know what words meant. Now you, Steophan specifically, are saying that corroboration means proof. It does not. Sometimes corroboration comes in the form of proof, hence the inclusion of proof in the list of synonyms of corroboration, sometimes corroboration falls well short of proof. Corroborated is a much weaker characterization of the truth value of a statement than proved.

Finally, it's Dr. Turbo not Mr. Turbo. PhD Mathematics. I'd rather you didn't use an honorific, but if you're going to you may as well use the right one.
  #514  
Old Yesterday, 12:41 PM
Lance Turbo Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 3,544
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
Yes, there is implied guilt when you say something has been corroborated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
If a statement is not corroborated with solid evidence it cannot be corroborated by another statement also lacking verifiable evidence.
Both of these statements show that you are assuming a much stronger, more restrictive definition of corroborated than the agreed upon one for the purposes of this discussion.

Dr. Ford's assertion that Brett Kavanaugh was a little bit older than her and went to school near her has corroboration, and the corroboration for this particular assertion rises to the level of proof, but this corroborated assertion in no way implies guilt in any criminal matter.
  #515  
Old Yesterday, 12:43 PM
doorhinge doorhinge is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 9,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
I don't think this at all. Like not even a little bit.

I think two assertions that a certain individual engaged in a certain type of behavior corroborate each other. The two assertions are not unrelated. The two assertions are connected in two obvious ways: the individual and the type of behavior. Connected, interconnected, associated, linked, coupled,... related.
Two uncorroborated claims do not make a one, or the other, corroborated.
  #516  
Old Yesterday, 12:48 PM
Lance Turbo Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 3,544
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
correct me if I'm wrong but people have insisted kavanaugh shouldn't be a Supreme Court judge because he's been accused of something heinous. Some have even said there's a shit-ton of evidence to that effect even though there no verifiable evidence to corroborate it.
I think you are wrong, but more importantly I am not insisting or saying these things so I have no obligation to defend such statements if they exist.

Last edited by Lance Turbo; Yesterday at 12:52 PM.
  #517  
Old Yesterday, 12:52 PM
Lance Turbo Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 3,544
Quote:
Originally Posted by doorhinge View Post
Two uncorroborated claims do not make a one, or the other, corroborated.
Two pieces of eyewitness testimony that attribute the same behavior to the same individual are both direct evidence and tend to support each other. All the boxes are checked to rigorously satisfy the precise and agreed upon definition of corroboration.
  #518  
Old Yesterday, 12:59 PM
doorhinge doorhinge is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 9,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
Allegedly? Testimony is unquestionably direct evidence.



I need anything. Dr. Ford's assertion that Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her while he was drunk is corroborated by Deborah Ramirez's assertion that Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her while he was drunk. And vice versa.
"Unquestionably"? Seriously? Ford's and Ramirez's individual assertions haven't been corroborated by anyone. Ford's and Ramirez's individual assertions sound similar, but maybe that was Ramirez's intention.
  #519  
Old Yesterday, 01:03 PM
Magiver Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 27,887
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
Two pieces of eyewitness testimony that attribute the same behavior to the same individual are both direct evidence and tend to support each other. All the boxes are checked to rigorously satisfy the precise and agreed upon definition of corroboration.
We do not have evidence of two eye witness claims. We just have the claims. The only claims that can be verified are those found on the internet. It's like saying it was a sunny day, the sun exists, therefore the claim of sexual assault is valid.
__________________
"People enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought": John Anderson
  #520  
Old Yesterday, 01:04 PM
Lance Turbo Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 3,544
Quote:
Originally Posted by doorhinge View Post
"Unquestionably"? Seriously? Ford's and Ramirez's individual assertions haven't been corroborated by anyone. Ford's and Ramirez's individual assertions sound similar, but maybe that was Ramirez's intention.
Direct evidence.

Quote:
In direct evidence, a witness relates what he or she directly experienced.
Both Dr. Ford's and Deborah Ramirez's assertions that Brett Kavanaugh, while drunk, sexually assaulted each of them are direct evidence because they are relating what they directly experienced. It is unquestionable that this is direct evidence regardless of whether or not you believe them.
  #521  
Old Yesterday, 01:05 PM
doorhinge doorhinge is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 9,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
Two pieces of eyewitness testimony that attribute the same behavior to the same individual are both direct evidence and tend to support each other. All the boxes are checked to rigorously satisfy the precise and agreed upon definition of corroboration.
Who corroborated Ramirez's claim that she was molested by Cavenaugh? It couldn't be Ford, because Ford has never claimed that she was present when Ramirez was drinking.
  #522  
Old Yesterday, 01:07 PM
doorhinge doorhinge is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 9,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
Direct evidence.



Both Dr. Ford's and Deborah Ramirez's assertions that Brett Kavanaugh, while drunk, sexually assaulted each of them are direct evidence because they are relating what they directly experienced. It is unquestionable that this is direct evidence regardless of whether or not you believe them.
You didn't say "corroborated".
  #523  
Old Yesterday, 01:07 PM
Lance Turbo Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 3,544
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
We do not have evidence of two eye witness claims. We just have the claims.
As explained in the previous post, the claims themselves are direct evidence. This is just a fact. It's what direct evidence means.
  #524  
Old Yesterday, 01:14 PM
Lance Turbo Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 3,544
Quote:
Originally Posted by doorhinge View Post
You didn't say "corroborated".
Well spotted.

You didn't say "formication". Is that how this game works? We point out words that other posters didn't say?

I was defending my use of the word "unquestionably" not the word "corroborated".

When someone testifies about something he or she directly experienced that is called direct evidence.
  #525  
Old Yesterday, 01:37 PM
Lance Turbo Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 3,544
Quote:
Originally Posted by doorhinge View Post
Who corroborated Ramirez's claim that she was molested by Cavenaugh? It couldn't be Ford, because Ford has never claimed that she was present when Ramirez was drinking.
This is another post where a poster is using a much stronger, more restrictive definition of corroborated than the one agreed upon in, or really any posted to, this thread.

Corroboration does not require two people witnessing the exact event at the exact time and place, despite Steophan's and now doorhinge's insistence that it does. The actual definition is much weaker than that.

Last edited by Lance Turbo; Yesterday at 01:38 PM.
  #526  
Old Yesterday, 01:51 PM
Magiver Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 27,887
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post

When someone testifies about something he or she directly experienced that is called direct evidence.
And without proof it's unsubstantiated.
__________________
"People enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought": John Anderson
  #527  
Old Yesterday, 02:08 PM
Lance Turbo Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 3,544
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
And without proof it's unsubstantiated.
Maybe, maybe not. I am not claiming that proof exists or that it is substantiated so I am not obligated to defend such claims.
  #528  
Old Yesterday, 05:17 PM
Steophan Steophan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 8,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
Each of these statements is a direct consequence of a straightforward rigorous application of the definition of corroborated. None of them are false.
They are all false. Statements about unrelated events have no evidentiary value on each other, and claiming that an accusation about someone is corroborated is making a claim about their guilt. Unless your definition of "corroboration" has no relevance to the truth of the allegation, there's no way it could not affect the likelihood of their guilt.

Quote:
I went to a great deal of trouble to establish a mutually agreeable definition of corroborated for the purposes of this thread. That definition does not include the word proof. The definition you linked to does not contain the word proof. Some other thing you click on when you go to the definition of the word corroborated that you linked to does include the word proof, but that doesn't tell us about the carefully established definition of corroboration that we are using in this discussion.
That "some other thing" was synonyms, for those who didn't follow the link. I would link to a definition of "synonym", but I fear you would misunderstand that as well.

A coroborated statement is one that has supporting evidence, and so - in the absence of contradictory evidence - is confirmed. That is to say, proven, at least to the standard of preponderance of evidence. If you are only using "proven" to mean things that are certain, or those beyond reasonable doubt, or for that matter a 5 sigma probability, then you are excluding most usage, either formal or casual.

Quote:
Furthermore, way upthread I said the thing that was leading many of you to incorrect conclusions was that you were conflating 'corroborated' with 'proved'. I was assured that that was in no way the case and that it I was the one that didn't know what words meant. Now you, Steophan specifically, are saying that corroboration means proof. It does not. Sometimes corroboration comes in the form of proof, hence the inclusion of proof in the list of synonyms of corroboration, sometimes corroboration falls well short of proof.
You are the one repeatedly reaching incorrect conclusion, as you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the way evidence works. You also fail to understand that both "proof" and "corroboration" are spectrums, and "corroborated" is almost entirely within the spectrum "proven" - the only case where it wouldn't be is where there is evidence to support a claim, but stronger evidence to reject it.

Quote:
Corroborated is a much weaker characterization of the truth value of a statement than proved.
At best, that's only true in casual usage, as I've just shown. To be honest, before I looked closer into the full meaning of the words, I'd probably have agreed with that statement, though.

Regardless, Ford's allegations are neither corroborated nor proven, as there is no evidence that supports the allegations.

Quote:
Finally, it's Dr. Turbo not Mr. Turbo. PhD Mathematics. I'd rather you didn't use an honorific, but if you're going to you may as well use the right one.
My apologies, I should have been able to tell from your posting in this thread that you are an expert it a specific, narrow field.
  #529  
Old Yesterday, 05:18 PM
Steophan Steophan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 8,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
Maybe, maybe not. I am not claiming that proof exists or that it is substantiated so I am not obligated to defend such claims.
Maybe check that synonyms section I linked to before claiming that you're not talking about substantiation.
  #530  
Old Yesterday, 06:25 PM
Lance Turbo Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 3,544
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
They are all false. Statements about unrelated events have no evidentiary value on each other, and claiming that an accusation about someone is corroborated is making a claim about their guilt.
I have demonstrated that the events are not unrelated. The events are clearly and obviously related in at least two very important ways.

Claiming that an accusation about someone is corroborated is making a claim the existence of evidence that tends to support that claim.

That's the definition agreed upon for this thread. A list of synonyms is not a definition and it definitely is not the definition we agreed on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
A coroborated statement is one that has supporting evidence, and so - in the absence of contradictory evidence - is confirmed. That is to say, proven, at least to the standard of preponderance of evidence. If you are only using "proven" to mean things that are certain, or those beyond reasonable doubt, or for that matter a 5 sigma probability, then you are excluding most usage, either formal or casual.
Is this something you just made up? Do you have a link to anything that shows that this definition of corroborated is anything other than unique to you?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
My apologies, I should have been able to tell from your posting in this thread that you are an expert it a specific, narrow field.
The specific narrow field in question consists almost entirely of the construction of logical arguments.
  #531  
Old Yesterday, 07:37 PM
Steophan Steophan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 8,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
Is this something you just made up? Do you have a link to anything that shows that this definition of corroborated is anything other than unique to you?
Yes, the definition I linked to a few posts ago.

Quote:
The specific narrow field in question consists almost entirely of the construction of logical arguments.
It's truly astonishing that I failed to realise that.
  #532  
Old Yesterday, 08:07 PM
Lance Turbo Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 3,544
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
Yes, the definition I linked to a few posts ago.
That link had all that stuff about preponderance of the evidence and five sigma and what not? I didn't see that. In fact, that seems a lot like stuff you squeezed in there.

Can you put your definition of corroboration in words in this thread please?

Something along the lines of, "An assertion is corroborated if a, b, c, ..." Where a, b, c, or as many or as few things required for an assertion to be corroborated. Can you state your definition of corroborated in such a way that the minimum elements of corroboration are explicit.

Your link to Oxford Living Dictionaries says, "Corroboration: Evidence which confirms or supports a statement, theory, or finding; confirmation." This seems pretty consistent with the definition I've been using in this thread. The statement, "An assertion is corroborated if other evidence exists that tends to support it," doesn't seem inconsistent with the definition you linked to in any meaningful way.
  #533  
Old Yesterday, 10:17 PM
Magiver Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 27,887
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
Maybe, maybe not. I am not claiming that proof exists or that it is substantiated so I am not obligated to defend such claims.
there is no gray area here. Without proof it's unsubstantiated.

You're obligated to defend your position that the claims made are corroborated by verifiable facts.
__________________
"People enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought": John Anderson
  #534  
Old Yesterday, 10:29 PM
Lance Turbo Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 3,544
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
there is no gray area here. Without proof it's unsubstantiated.
Even if there is no proof and it is unsubstantiated, it doesn't magically become not evidence. A person's testimony about something they directly experienced is direct evidence. Proof or not. Substantiated or not. Still evidence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
You're obligated to defend your position that the claims made are corroborated by verifiable facts.
This is a poor representation of my position. I'll defend my position, not some funhouse mirror version of it.
  #535  
Old Yesterday, 11:15 PM
Steophan Steophan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 8,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
The statement, "An assertion is corroborated if other evidence exists that tends to support it," doesn't seem inconsistent with the definition you linked to in any meaningful way.
Evidence either does or does not support an assertion, where do you get "tends to" from? An assertion is corroborated if there exists evidence that supports it, and it is proven if the evidence that supports it is sufficiently stronger than that which refutes it.

In all your examples, which involve independent events, the evidence about one event does not support the others. All your questions about the exact meaning of corroborate are simply there to avoid this simple point. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of evidence and proof. Your use of the phrase "tends to" demonstrates that you think these are matters of opinion. They are not, they are matters of fact. It is a fact that there is no evidence in the public domain that supports Ford's claim that Kavanaugh assaulted her, and no one's opinion can change that.

If you choose to believe her despite the lack of evidence, have the balls to say that's what you're doing.
  #536  
Old Today, 12:19 AM
Lance Turbo Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 3,544
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
Evidence either does or does not support an assertion, where do you get "tends to" from? An assertion is corroborated if there exists evidence that supports it, and it is proven if the evidence that supports it is sufficiently stronger than that which refutes it.
I'm not 100% sure where I picked up the, "Tends to support," language. I Googled the definition, cut and pasted one that I found into this thread, and then asked for input as to whether this definition sufficed. I'll go so far as to say I begged for input, especially from those who disagreed with me. I'm certainly not trying to squeeze in the "Tends to support," language to pull a fast one. I'm not sure it needs to be, "tends to support," rather than, "supports," and I don't think that really changes anything I've said.

That said, I'll stick with the, "Tends to support," language for now because that is the version we agreed to when a great deal of effort was put into nailing down a definition of "corroborated" and I'm reluctant to change it now without the consent of more of the people involved in that discussion.

For the record I actually roughly agree with your characterization of the difference between corroborated and proven. It seemed like you were arguing that there was no difference a while back, so that's something.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
In all your examples, which involve independent events, the evidence about one event does not support the others. All your questions about the exact meaning of corroborate are simply there to avoid this simple point. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of evidence and proof. Your use of the phrase "tends to" demonstrates that you think these are matters of opinion. They are not, they are matters of fact. It is a fact that there is no evidence in the public domain that supports Ford's claim that Kavanaugh assaulted her, and no one's opinion can change that.
My examples do not involve independent events. Point to a specific example and I will show how the events are connected if you don't understand.

My posts about the exact meaning of corroborate were intended put everyone on the same page, at least about the definition, before we got into the meat of the argument. You know, so someone wouldn't weirdly nitpick two words in the definition like several hundred posts latter. It's kind of annoying that you are attacking the definition I posted now after my many requests from at least a week ago for affirmation or rejection of that particular definition.

I do not have a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of evidence and proof. Everything I have refered to as evidence is evidence and I am purposely avoiding discussing proof. It's not because I don't understand proof, it's because it is not relevant.

I explained my use of the phrase "tends to" above.

It is a fact that Deborah Ramirez's testimony that Brett Kavanuagh, while drunk, sexaully assaulted her is evidence that supports Dr. Ford's claim that Brett Kavanaugh, while drunk, sexually assaulted her. This is not a matter of opinion. These are not independent events. They are not independent because they both involve Brett Kavanaugh, while drunk, sexually assaulting a woman. The relationship between these two events is quite strong and quite clear. It is not a matter of opinion that they are not independent, it is a fact.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
If you choose to believe her despite the lack of evidence, have the balls to say that's what you're doing.
I believe her because of the evidence.
  #537  
Old Today, 12:24 AM
Lance Turbo Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 3,544
Here's one example...

Quote:
Corroborating evidence is evidence that tends to support a proposition that is already supported by some initial evidence, therefore confirming the proposition.
  #538  
Old Today, 12:51 AM
Lance Turbo Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 3,544
QUIGLEY v. WINTER

Quote:
Winter next insists the district court made the following evidentiary errors:  (1) admitting “me too” testimony from three of Winter's former female tenants;
Quote:
Winter first claims the district court erred in admitting the testimony of Winter's former tenants, Lisa Scofield, Kayla Mobley, and Holly Cook. These three women testified Winter also subjected them to sexual harassment while they were Winter's tenants.   Winter claims the testimony of these three women was irrelevant because there was no evidence Quigley knew the women or observed any of the events to which they testified.
Quote:
Affording the district court broad discretion, we hold the district court properly performed its gatekeeping function and did not abuse its discretion in admitting the evidence of Winter's three former tenants.
So part of the plaintiff's case was “me too” testimony from other victims harassed at other times and places by the defendant. The plaintiff didn't witness these other incidents or even know the victims.

This was found to be admissible evidence.

Apparently this kind of thing is called pattern and practice evidence.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:53 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017