(A) is evidence that tends to support (B). That’s as far as it needs to go for (A) to corroborate (B).
(A) does not need to provide evidence that (B) is true to corroborate (B).
Please refer to the definition of corroborate.
Concisely…
The fallacy of division applies to statements of the form: (A) therefore (B).
The fallacy of division does not apply to statements of the form: (A) tends to support (B).
Quick question… is hearsay a form of evidence?
Another quick question: Was this a trial, or a job interview?
Oh I understand the difference. I was hoping you’d get the meaning of the example. Ahh well.
At least the line of argument that investigations should have continued has merit. It acknowledges that there are unknowns and seeks to uncover them. This whole ‘corroboration’ gambit is just laughable.
No, it corroborates a bunch of people from the school fit the description. It does not corroborate any part of the story involving Ford and Kavanaugh. To say stating a publicly known fact is a corroboration unto itself completely ignores the meaning of the word in any context.
The ‘corroboration’ gambit? I am objecting to posts that claim Dr. Ford’s assertions are uncorroborated. I’m not trying to prove a crime occurred or that Kavanaugh did this or that. I have a specific objection to posts that claim that Dr. Ford’s claims are completely uncorroborated.
Remember this…
I am trying to defend these specific statements and refute the specific statements that these were refuting.
All off these hinged on the use of the word corroborated and that people were using that specific word incorrectly. I don’t know how to combat this without using the ‘corroboration’ gambit.
No, it isn’t.
No.
People are claiming that Ford’s allegations are uncorroborated. No-one is disputing her statements about where Judge and Kavanaugh went to school, or that he name at the time was Christine Blasey, or whatever.
Not only are her actual allegations uncorroborated, they’ve been refuted by the people she claimed would corroborate them - the friend who was allegedly at the party, her therapist, pretty much everyone else who has been interviewed about it.
As far as I can tell, none of Ford’s statement is in the position of being “corroborated”. There are some easily verifiable details that have been proven true, and some allegations that have no evidence beyond her claim to support them. There are, again as far as I can tell, no statements that could be best characterised as “having some evidence to support them, but no proof”, which is how I would define “corroborated” for the purpose of this discussion.
Where did this definition come from? Is it unique to you or can you point to some wider use? In particular, can you show me anyone else who shoehorns in this ‘no proof’ language?
How is this possible?
Me: (A) corroborates (B).
You: Saying that (B) is true because of (A) is the fallacy of division.
Me: I didn’t say that (B) was true. I said (A) corroborates (B) and I went out of my way to rigorously define corroborate for the purposes of this discussion. Why in the world do you think the fallacy of division is applicable?
It’s like an analogy dude. Maybe next we can spend 100 posts defining the word “the” and other banal distractions. Then we can move on to “like” which is complicated because it can have multiple meanings. In about 50 years we can get to “analogy” and it may make sense. But for now, I take solace knowing that everyone else reading understands why you’re failing at presenting a compelling argument.
Every post without evidence makes your claims weaker and weaker. Notice how virtually none of the anti Kavanaugh people are with you on this. This is first rule of holes time.
You are the guy who pretended he didn’t know what ‘both’ meant.
The strength of, “Many of the details she gave us have been corroborated,” does not depend on the my posting frequency. It’s a straight up true statement whether I post or not.
Actually, I still don’t know how you interpret both. I gave two examples inferring the meaning. One of those is true, the other unknown. You declined to clarify because your claims rely on equivocation. Here was my response:
So, what is meant by “both”? The first example, the second, or something else?
If the nature of the details being referred to are things like, her last name is Ford, her age, where she lives, etc. do you think that is valuable information? If the nature of the details being referred to are video evidence, hair and DNA samples, etc. do you think that is valuable? I think the latter would be much more valuable, and the former useless. Both can be covered in the phrase, ‘many of the details’ but because you equivocate the exercise is laughable.
The strength of your claim relies on your ability to support it. Declining to do so weakens your claim. I know this secret. It’s amazing. I’m not going to tell you though. I just know it.
Hahaha.
You’re sticking with, “How can I possibly know what both means?” while simultaneously accusing me of playing semantic games.
I don’t have a secret. I’m not declining to support my claim.
I am trying to reach a mutually agreeable definition of corroborated and then apply that definition to statements made by Dr. Ford given the available evidence. I am doing this because my very not secret claim is that many of Dr. Ford’s claims have been corroborated.
I am proceeding with an abundance of caution because it has been extraordinarily difficult even arrive at a definition much less apply it to the simplest non-trivial example.
Some examples of the inexplicable hurdles:
She corroborated the internet
I don’t know what both means
You can’t corroborate something if it’s true
Publicly available information can’t be corroboration
A hilarious misapplication of the fallacy of division
Corroboration gambit
Some irrelevant sideshow about consistent
You have a pile of assertions, a mess of evidence, and a definition of corroborated. Dispassionately apply that definition to those assertions given the evidence and make piles of corroborated and uncorroborated assertions.
If at the end end of this exercise the there is nothing in the corroborated pile my claim will be false.
If at the end end of this exercise the only thing in the corroborated pile are assertions like, “Brett Kavanaugh is male,” my claim will be weak.
If at the end end of this exercise the corroborated pile includes a lot of Dr. Ford’s assertions including things like, “Brett Kavanaugh, while drunk, sexually assaulted me,” then, “Many of the details she gave us have been corroborated,” is pretty much inarguable. (Hint: it’s this one.)
I can’t make you participate in this exercise, but your unwillingness to do so while still arguing that Dr. Ford’s assertions are uncorroborated is baffling at best, and appears to be intellectually dishonest at worst.
No, I’m saying you’ve equivocated. You can cure that by clarifying. Why don’t you?
Maybe you can skip to the end. Or not. Is there a treatise on the meaning of the word “the” coming next?
This is insane. You think I’m equivocating? You think I am the who is using ambiguous language to avoid committing myself?
I have, many times, directly asked you if a particular assertion was corroborated or uncorroborated? You have not answered once with the words corroborated or uncorroborated. I think once you gave me a stipulated.
I’ve tried over and over to get you to commit to working definition of corroborated. Once you said to assume we are all using the same definition.
I’m the one who’s equivocating?
The ‘both’ in question was part of a direct quote from Dr. Ford’s letter to Senator Feinstein. Even if it was ambiguous language it is not my ambiguous language, and it is not remotely ambiguous language.
I have repeatedly asked you direct questions in this thread and I can’t recall ever getting a straight answer.
Equivocator, heal thyself.
Quick answer… in some cases it is.
In this particular case, Ford told a story to several people. Several of those people repeated Ford’s story. None of those people admit to being at the as-of-yet-unidentified mystery house. None of those people admit to being present when Ford was allegedly molested. They are simply repeating what Ford had told them years later. None of those people corroborated Ford’s claim of being molested.
Plus, Ford’s own psychiatrist’s notes provided a noticeably different version of what Ford later told the Senate Judiciary Committee.
If anything, Ford’s own witnesses undermine her claims.
I said “for the purposes of this discussion”, to avoid people trying to claim that proven statements are “corroborated” for rhetorical purposes, as that is weaseling. It’s technically correct but deeply misleading.