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.
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.
The, “same place and time,” are not required for corroboration. Please refer to the definition of the term.
There you go with, “proof,” again. This isn’t about proof.
To support a claim that something happened at a particular time and place, it is obviously required. You are fundamentally wrong.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
False.
False.
False.
Please stop repeating statements that you know to be false.
Hereit 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.
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.
Each of these statements is a direct consequence of a straightforward rigorous application of the definition of corroborated. None of them are false.
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.
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.
Two uncorroborated claims do not make a one, or the other, corroborated.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.