The problem is you’ve taken the pedantic approach of focusing on a definition that no one disputes.
If we append the statement as you’ve said, to Brett and Mark were visibly drunk, [on the day of the other events described] in that part of her statement.
Then that is not corroborated. You see how adding specificity can change the assessment right? That’s why relying on the general doesn’t make your point at all and is such a spectacularly bad argument. But if you don’t supply that level of specificity, then it doesn’t even rise to the level of a meaningful assertion. It’s just noise - much like the focus on defining words.
I do recommend you use the construction A corroborates B because as you can see, you’ve failed to communicate your point otherwise.
The statement I am primarily objecting to is, “The fact that none of the details she does allege can be corroborated does cast suspicion on her case.” Demonstrating that details she has alleged are corroborated seems like an excellent, possibly the best, way to refute this.
Baby steps.
Spoiler alert: the allegation that Brett Kavanaugh, while drunk, sexually assaulted Chrisitne Blasey is also corroborated, but we’re no where near where you guys are capable of dispassionately applying the definition of corroborated to that assertion given the available evidence. It took like one hundred posts to get you to agree that a statement you thought was true also satisfied the definition of corroborated.
It’s as if you’re saying, well, her name is Ford therefore that is corroborated! Insert “meaningful” before the word “details” and perhaps that would be more clear.
It makes no difference that her name is Ford and that is corroborated. That’s not meaningful to the allegation. You are focusing on things that don’t matter at all. It’s also corroborated that she is human. Sick burn!
That is corroborated. There is a lot of evidence that tends to support the assertion that Kavanaugh and Judge were visibly drunk on any given day during their upperclass years at Georgetown Prep. This particular day, whatever it was, included.
The point being that corroboration is an extremely weak characterization of an assertion. The evidence only needs to tend to support the assertion to corroborate it. Kavanaugh and Judge were frequently drunk, and drunk together, during those years. Thus an assertion that there was a day where they were visibly drunk is corroborated by evidence that they were frequently drunk.
(The huge pile of evidence that they were frequently drunk on many days) corroborates (any assertion that they were drunk on any particular day).
You are the one slowing this process down by dragging your heels and refusing to give an inch without a fight on things that aren’t really even in dispute.
Wah, wah, that assertion is true it can’t be corroborated.
Good God, have we not have about 25,000 posts in a 100 or so threads on this topic already?
Look, Lance Turbo, even Professor Ford and her lawyers did not take the stance that her claims were corroborated, she freely admitted that she had little to go on in her statement before the SJC. Hell, they spent a lot of effort trying to explain away the lack of corroboration as unimportant, since *nothing memorable happened to the other people *
You seem to be going further than the claimant.
“Were the boys she named actual students at a local private school? Yes, they were. That part of Ford’s claim has been corroborated by others. It has been established that the boys Ford chose to name were local private school students.”
Ford could have verified that particular part of her statement by perusing the internet, or the library. She had some 35 years to do so. Maybe Ford’s beach-friends fed Ford the information.
Team Ford still has not been able to corroborate her specific claims of who, what, where, when, or how her fantasy molestation occurred.
(And by corroborate, I mean no one has added any specific information in support of Ford’s idea, opinion, or statement that she was actually molested, by anyone.)
Bwahahaha. Oh, you’re serious? Have you ever heard of the term “hearsay”?
*hearsay
noun [ U ] us /ˈhɪrˌseɪ/
information you have heard that might or might not be true:
The court cannot accept evidence based on hearsay and rumor.*
Four people admitted that Ford only TOLD them of her claims. The four people readily admit that they were NOT present at the still unknown location, and were NOT present where Ford imagined that she was molested.
These four people support Ford’s claims, but can provide no actual evidence that anything Ford claimed actually happened.
These four people have NOT corroborated Ford’s claims. They only corroborate that Ford told them the same, or similar, story AFTER the fact.
Lance, you are making it apparent that either you are the one who doesn’t understand the discussion, or you are attempting to use a rhetorician’s tricks to try to score points while claiming innocence. The only alternative is you don’t understand the difference between “corroboration” and “plausibility”.
This last post contains a significant logical fallacy. More obviously, Lance, are you still beating your wife? Yes or no only, please.
Or, to go back: They weren’t there. Can’t be drunk at a location if they weren’t at a location. Proving they were at a location or specific time is required for this claim. It is necessitated by “were”- “were” donates a specific time and specific times connote specific places (associated with that time-noun combination)
When you lay out the statement like this it should be apparent why it makes no sense. You’ve offered an example of the fallacy of division.
(That the majority of American voters in the 2016 election who cast a vote did so in favor of Hillary Clinton) corroborates *(any assertion that any particular voter voted for Hillary Clinton). *
Try this one
(The huge pile of evidence that OJ Simpson did not kill everyone he met) corroborates (any assertion that he did not kill any particular person he met).
Except, these are nonsense just as your example is.
Neither, as the sentence on its own stands. Ford’s actual allegation is uncorroborated, your claim above is too incomplete to be falsifiable.
Say when and where they were visibly drunk, then we can discuss whether it’s corroborated.
However, if you believe I’m wrong, if you believe either your claim or Ford’s to be corroborated, the burden is on you to demonstrate that. First, you’ll have to explain how “they were visibly drunk”, as a standalone claim is even meaningful in the first place. There are two possible things I think you may mean by it - firstly, that they have ever been visibly drunk, which is provably true but irrelevant, and secondly that they were visibly drunk when Ford was attacked, which is uncorroborated, and likely false as the balance of the evidence is that even if Ford was attacked Judge and Kavanaugh were not visible at the time.
No, (A) is consistent with (B) - that is, it provides no evidence that (B) is false. It also provides no evidence that (B) is true, so does not corroborate it.
There is no corroboration that Kavanaugh and Judge were drunk on the day Ford was attacked, no corroboration that they were present when she was attacked, and no corroboration that she was attacked at all. That it’s not impossible for them to have done it - which is the sum total of your claims to date - does not corroborate anything.
This is why I made my statement about plausibility. Given the frequent reports of their drinking, it is plausible on any given school night they may have been drinking. Which corroborates nothing and doesn’t even reveal any secret knowledge CBF might have had, since both she and they assert she was in orbit to the same social circles.
This is great and really shows where you are confusing corroboration and proof.
“A fallacy of division occurs when one reasons logically that something true for the whole must also be true of all or some of its parts.”
At no point am I arguing that because something is true for the whole therefore it must be true all or some of it parts. I would certainly be guilty of this fallacy if I were doing that. That kind of thing would invalidate a proof.
What I am arguing is that because something is true for the whole therefore it tends to support that it is true for all or some of its parts. This is the big difference between corroboration and proof and the reason why I have committed no logical fallacy.
(The evidence that Kavanaugh and Judge were drunk together at many gatherings) corroborates (Dr. Ford’s assertion that she attended a gathering where Kavanaugh and Judge were drunk).
That’s a statement about corroboration. I am not concluding the truth of Dr. Ford’s assertion so I’m not committing a fallacy.
That’s much different from…
(Kavanaugh and Judge were drunk at a lot of parties) therefore (they were drunk at this party).
That statement is problematic precisely because of the fallacy you mentioned.