You’re avoiding the question. Dodging the question can make someone appear to be be intellectually dishonest.
I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and give you another shot.
Dr. Ford made this assertion…
Has this assertion been corroborated or does it remain uncorroborated?
In other words, is there any other evidence that tends to support this assertion?
Just to make myself clear.
I’m not trying to score points with semantic quibbles here.
Dr. Ford made this assertion… “Both were one to two years older than me and students at a local private school.”
This assertion has been corroborated and it is important that it has been corroborated.
When people learned Dr. Ford’s name in connection to her letter to Senator Feinstein the first thing they did was to look for corroboration for this assertion in particular. Senate staffers sought corroboration, reporters sought corroboration, internet randos sought corroboration. Corroborating this assertion was so important that it was almost certainly the first thing anyone seriously investigating this matter attempted to do upon learning Dr. Ford’s name.
And they all found corroborating evidence.
It can’t be understated how important it was that evidence to corroborate this particular assertion was.
Imagine an identical letter sent by Blistine Chrasey to Senator Feinstein, but in this case no one was able to find evidence that Blistine had ever been more than ten miles from Pocatello, Idaho. How might that have played out differently?
This is why corroboration of this particular assertion matters.
it’s not particularly relevant when it’s public domain.
But it is corroborated, right?
I’m trying to to establish a definition of corroborated that we can agree on. An assertion is corroborated when there is other evidence that tends to support it. That’s the definition I’m going with. Do you agree with it?
Dr. Ford’s assertion, “Both were one to two years older than me and students at a local private school,” is corroborated because other evidence exists that tends to support it. Correct?
Are we on the same page?
We might not be talking about the same things. That there were other students at school with Ford, and that some of those other students were male, doesn’t corroborate that Kavanaugh attacked her. It doesn’t even corroborate that she was attacked at all - “I was attacked by a man, and there were men in the same school with me” doesn’t corroborate anything. It’s just her word for it.
What we would need is some kind of evidence that Kavanaugh was at that party (and there isn’t any) on that occasion (and there isn’t any, because we don’t know when it happened) in that house (and there isn’t any, because we don’t know what house it was).
‘I was attacked by a man, he’s a man, therefore we know that I was attacked’ isn’t a very tight syllogism. What kind of evidence do you have that you were attacked [ul][li]at a particular time[/ul][ul][]in a particular place[/ul][ul][]by a particular man?[/ul][/li]
Regards,
Shodan
No one is making the argument you are attempting to refute here.
You posted, “The fact that none of the details she does allege can be corroborated does cast suspicion on her case.” This is false. I can see why you’d want to move on to some other discussion, but the polite thing to do is to retract your false claim first.
None of the details she alleges corroborate that she was attacked, nor that Kavanaugh attacked her.
As mentioned, Ford’s claim to have been attacked by a man is not corroborated by the fact that Kavanaugh is a man. Because there is no corroboration that she was attacked at all, and no corroboration that Kavanaugh did it.
Regards,
Shodan
This is a much different claim than, “The fact that none of the details she does allege can be corroborated does cast suspicion on her case.” Are you retracting this original claim and restating it?
Some of the details she does allege can be corroborated. Quite a few. I’m focusing on one in particular to establish a mutually agreeable definition of corroborated, but that is definitely not the only claim Dr. Ford made that has been corroborated.
You should add something along the lines of “… to the exclusion of other possible interpretations.” Evidence that supports one assertion along with a whole bunch of others isn’t corroboration.
How does that assertion in any way compel the conclusion that her story about being attacked is correct?
Why? Can you link to a definition of corroborated that has this other possible interpretations language?
That’s a question for much later in the discussion if it belongs at all. What I’m trying to do now is establish a mutually agreeable definition of corroborated.
A huge hurdle in this discussion seems (to me at least) to be a failure to make a distinction between corroboration and proof. “To the exclusion of other possible interpretations,” might be appropriate in a definition of proof, but I don’t think it has a place in a definition of corroboration.
OK.
The assertions that we need corroboration on are
[ol][li]That Ford was attacked[/li][li]That Kavanaugh was the attacker.[/ol]There is no other evidence that tends to support these assertions. None of the details that Ford gave tend to support them. [/li]
There is no evidence tending to support that she was attacked - she never mentioned it for thirty years, she showed no signs of the tailspin she says it sent her into. There is no evidence tending to support that Kavanaugh was the attacker - none of the other people alleged to have been at the party corroborate that the party happened, we aren’t even sure where or when it happened, and Keyser says she does not recall ever being at any party with Kavanaugh.
We need corroboration of the details that would actually support the accusation. I think that’s what you are not getting. That Kavanaugh attended a prep school, and is/was a man, and that Ford attended a sister school, does not corroborate that the attack happened or that Kavanaugh did it.
Regards,
Shodan
I found “to support with evidence or authority : make more certain”.
Evidence consistent with an accusation being true that’s also consistent with the accusation being false doesn’t make the accusation more certain. It thus isn’t corroboration.
I seems like you’re agreeing with the definition here, and that’s an important step.
Could I trouble you to come out and explicitly say whether or not you agree with the definition I have provided?
I’m not sure how the definition you linked to is inconsistent with the one I have provided. Can you give an example of evidence simultaneously consistent with an accusation being true and false? Does this have something to do with, “to the exclusion of other possible interpretations”? I can’t think of any normal use of the corroborated that rose to the level of excluding other possible interpretations. Can you provide such an example? A piece of evidence that provides no other interpretation of the facts other than that a given assertion is true sounds like proof, which is much stronger than mere corroboration.
Here’s a question. If I claim to have been at the movies last night and I submit ticket stubs as corroboration of that claim, are the ticket stubs not corroboration because I could have fished them out of the trash?
The thing you are missing is being a student during a certain time period, being a male, those are not things in question and therefore do not need corroboration - they are matters of fact. If those facts didn’t line up then they would hurt the allegations, but if they do they do not help them.
Other areas of contested fact are what would benefit from corroboration.
One example would be the one you supplied: “Both were one to two years older than me and students at a local private school” Nothing about this statement makes either of the following possibilities more certain:
I am not missing this at all. Like not even a little. I may disagree, but I am not missing it.
More importantly determining whether a claim ‘needs’ corroboration or not is secondary to finding a mutually agreeable definition of corroboration.
I am focusing on Dr. Ford’s claim, “Both were one to two years older than me and students at a local private school,” because it is one of the earliest claims she made and one that is thoroughly corroborated. If you think this claim is uncorroborated, we must be relying on very different definitions of corroborated and we should probably get to the bottom of that before we try to go any further.
Need has nothing to do with it.
No one is claiming that, “Both were one to two years older than me and students at a local private school,” corroborates either of your statements about whether or not she was attacked.
I’m claiming, “Both were one to two years older than me and students at a local private school,” is an assertion of Dr. Ford’s that has been corroborated. I’m trying to establish a mutually agreeable definition of corroborated.
I will get to her statements about the attack that are also corroborated once we can agree on a definition. Only then will we have a common framework within which they can be discussed.
I skipped over this somehow…
This is true. If, “Both were one to two years older than me and students at a local private school,” could not be corroborated it would have been massively damaging to the allegations. That is why it is important to acknowledge that this claim of Dr. Ford’s was corroborated. Thoroughly corroborated by multiple news outlets and senatorial staffs using public information among other things. Like literally so freaking corroborated that no serious person doubts the truth of it.