Should alleged rape victims be belived?

Author: TheUnderdog

Posts

Total: 71
#31
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
Okay I will like to say I don't agree with the OP's actual reasoning to get to the conclusion.

Evidence does matter, circumstantial evidence is still evidence. Anecdotal evidence from other formerly silent victims is witness testimony once uttered under oath. We need to stop making conspiracy theories on EITHER side.

I am not denying there are disgusting coverups. Epstein is the most significant middleman who was probably assassinated (let's not beat around the bush) but he is not some new phenomenon or enigma. Sexual abuse is as ancient as our species itself. We need to make the victims feel comfortable coming forward, that is paramount for justice to take its course.

Do Michael Jacksons, Epstein's clients and Kevin Spaceys exist? Yes. Some filth does make it through the cracks. That's not just unfortunate, it's devastating. However, had the victims felt they would be believed and not be hullied into silence scared senseless of what to do or say, then we'd possibly have been able to find far more circumstancial evidence to put Jackson, Spacey, Weinstein and more at a place at a time and we could analyse damage to furniture in the room and any kind of CCTV type footage of the running away in the aftermath to put pieces ofnthe puzzle together. It's not easy. Rape is one of the most difficult crimes to solve even after having the evidence as ultimately the difference between the roughest BDSM and rape is one thing; consent. This was also a major factor in how Kobe Bryant got away with what quite likely was rape. He paid off the victim to say that she consented after the victim had the guts to come forward the next week (which he had not expected). We have a habit of glorifying the dead or vilifying the living but dead or alive, rape is rape. I am also empathetic even to the monsters who do it, not sympathetic at all, empathetic. I guarantee you that a significant % of rapists were emotionally, if not sexually and physically, abused in childhood and adolescence. It's what scars them so much and corrupts them. It's not an excuse at all, it's a reality.

We need to fix people, help them cry and say sorry and mean it. I'm not lessening the wrongness of their acts. I'm saying I don't think some of you are aware but there are rape victims who don't come forward out of fear of how bad prisoners will treat their rapist. I am not joking. When it comes to therapy and psychology, I don't make shit up. Trust me on this, the victims sometimes literally didn't cime forward as they are often the kindest, most giving people who got preyed upon and their nature is to care for others, even their rapist.

We need to understand that. The prison system is so utterly flawed idk what idiot even thought that this is the magical cure to hanging. Neither do anything close to rehabilitation.




#32
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@bmdrocks21
If you don't stop with all the dishonesty people'll start thinking your lying - or maybe you just don't read the stuff you cite:
"Because only 24 women and 8 menreported during their interviews that theyhad been raped in the 12 months preceding the survey, the annual estimatesshould be viewed with caution. NVAWSmost likely underestimates the actualnumber of annual rapes because itexcludes rapes of children and adolescents and those who are homeless orlive in institutions, group facilities, or residences without telephones. Because ofthe small number of Asian/Pacific Islanderwomen identified by the survey who hadbeen raped and the small number of menidentified for several indicators (e.g., several race/ethnicity categories, relationshipbetween early and subsequent rape victimization, injuries sustained during arape), NVAWS could not develop reliablerape prevalence estimates or conduct statistical tests."
Do you... just like only using studies with a horrendously low sample size? Or you know - ones that say: "NVAWS most likely underestimates the actual number of annual rapes," the study literally says to take its results with caution, but nope - generalizing andy here likes to pull it off as if it was all-authoritative. Oh what else is that? Is that a 20 year old source this time?
"The National Violence Against Women Survey( N VAWS) was conducted from November 1995 toMay 1996 by interviewers at Schulman, Ronca,Bucuvalas, Inc. (SRBI) under the direction ofJohn Boyle.a The authors of this Special Reportdesigned the survey questionnaire and conducted the analysis."
Your getting closer there, but dang it - your off by 20 years. Furthermore, the mere fact that someone was not prosecuted is not necessarily evidence that they did not do the rape, ESPECIALLY not 1995, but you know... that's even without the data being 20 years old, or the sample of actual rape victims (yes - 8000 people were interviewed, the actual number of people who they studied the court case of that rape is the ACTUAL sample size used for that data). 

And... what? You have made a comparison that is just... again, absurd - your height - which can be more than two things, does not apply to this - but if something can either be TRUE or FALSE - the crime either happened or it didn't - then their is no situation like this. Let me ask you - what is the third scenario in this situation - the rape allegation was true, the rape allegation was false - and? What's the third thing, I'm waiting. No - that's you going with something either be dismissed for lack of evidence, but we were not originally talking about THIS study, we were talking about the:
"Rumney study that took multiple studies from 1974 to 2005,"
Which reported the rate that allegations were FALSE - do you know what that means? That means if an allegation is found to be NOT FALSE - as in THE ALLEGATION HAPPENED - then it is? Come on, you can do it- it means its TRUE! The amount of mental gymnastics you try to pull is astounding. Just admit that you didn't actually read more than what supported your conclusion and get on with it. 

#33
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@Theweakeredge
I think you need to calm down. You obviously did not look through the study and perhaps a nice nap would make you think more clearly. You read the first page and stopped, and it shows.

Do you... just like only using studies with a horrendously low sample size? Or you know - ones that say: "NVAWS most likely underestimates the actual number of annual rapes," the study literally says to take its results with caution, but nope - generalizing andy here likes to pull it off as if it was all-authoritative. Oh what else is that? Is that a 20 year old source this time?
If you'll actually look at the table that the data came from, you'll see that the total sample size n was 734 for the initial question of if it was reported to the police, 135 for if they were prosecuted, and 54 asked about conviction of rapist based on if the question was applicable. I don't see how 16,000 respondents is a "horrendously low sample size" for a whole survey over two years......

Because only 24 women and 8 menreported during their interviews that theyhad been raped in the 12 months preceding the survey, the annual estimatesshould be viewed with caution.
This doesn't mean that the sample size was small. It just said that only 32 rapes of those surveyed occurred in the last 12 months and so projections for yearly averages should be taken with caution. Not sure how this was supposed to be some type of own. I'm not making yearly forecasts for the number of false accusations, I'm using percentages based on outcomes.

Your getting closer there, but dang it - your off by 20 years. Furthermore, the mere fact that someone was not prosecuted is not necessarily evidence that they did not do the rape, ESPECIALLY not 1995, but you know... that's even without the data being 20 years old, or the sample of actual rape victims (yes - 8000 people were interviewed, the actual number of people who they studied the court case of that rape is the ACTUAL sample size used for that data). 

I agree this data should be more relevant. I'm sure the rate of false accusations is much higher now in this "metoo" era where accusing people is now a bludgeon for anyone you may dislike for any reason, even politically (ie. Brett Kavanaugh). But, from one of the most reliable sources, I hardly doubt you'll find anything better than a large DoJ survey

but if something can either be TRUE or FALSE - the crime either happened or it didn't - then their is no situation like this. Let me ask you - what is the third scenario in this situation - the rape allegation was true, the rape allegation was false - and? What's the third thing, I'm waiting. No - that's you going with something either be dismissed for lack of evidence, but we were not originally talking about THIS study, we were talking about the:
I'll say this very very clearly for you: those percentages are known false allegations. That does not mean all others are true. In that particular study, it was either known false or it was not. That means all others were either false and they couldn't prove it or they were true.

Which reported the rate that allegations were FALSE - do you know what that means? That means if an allegation is found to be NOT FALSE - as in THE ALLEGATION HAPPENED - then it is? Come on, you can do it- it means its TRUE! The amount of mental gymnastics you try to pull is astounding. Just admit that you didn't actually read more than what supported your conclusion and get on with it. 
Read above. Keep reading until you understand it ^_^

Plus, some of those Rumney studies have over 1,100 respondents and produced percentages larger than your desired range. Another broke it down into false and possibly true/possibly false. They all used different methodologies, which explains the large range. 

Again, take a deep breathe. High blood pressure is bad for you.
#34
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@bmdrocks21
The fact that there was a high INTERVIEW RATE does not correspond with the rate of cases observed, in other words  less than 40 cases of rape were in that statistic you cited - because you read it wrong. You see - I'm taking my interpretation straight from the actual study, you are misinterpreting it, and your condescension is getting annoying. They, in total, interviewed that many people - but the amount of people's case s they actually followed (as in - knew whether the person alleged with rape was arrested and charged) was less than 40. As I said - a small sample size. 
#35
Tejretics
Tejretics's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 501
3
4
8
Tejretics's avatar
Tejretics
3
4
8
I was a victim of rape myself as a child, and I think this is a really difficult question – to balance the interests of real victims/survivors and the goal of fairness/justice.

My current intuition is:
  • For criminal punishment of the accused, use a “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” standard of evidence.
  • For social sanction of the accused (e.g., for hiring and firing decisions), use a “preponderance of the evidence” standard. Some due process is necessary, but the goal is simply to establish a >50% probability.
  • If the “preponderance of the evidence” standard is not met, do not sanction the accused, but don’t sanction the accuser either, ensure they are still able to access things like support for mental and physical health in the event that their accusation was correct, and take reasonable steps to separate the accuser and the accused if necessary. 
I’d say this applies to other (apart from rape) sexual assault cases as well, as well as other sexual harassment cases. I might support a lower bar on (2) for some decisions – for example, deciding who to appoint for major public office (though without further sanction if the preponderance of the evidence standard is not met) – though not substantially lower. 

This is not a perfect system by any means – unfortunately, many real perpetrators will slip through the cracks. Unfortunately, I think it’s the best possible system, as long as efforts are made to make things like reporting easier, because our statistics on false accusations are very poor and untrue allegations of harm is often a tactic of abuse/gaslighting. 

I think there’s honestly a reasonable argument for a weaker standard in point (2) in general. At the moment, however, I’m not convinced by it. 

#36
Tejretics
Tejretics's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 501
3
4
8
Tejretics's avatar
Tejretics
3
4
8
For clarity, in my previous post, by “social sanction,” I’m referring more to institutional sanctions (e.g., things enforced by educational institutions, employers, and so on).

With things related to how people in general treat someone, how included people are in social spaces, etc., I’m much less clear what the right bar is. 
#37
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
Though I've never been close enough to a rape case that went far enough to have a family member or friend be raped or accused of rape, so I have no personal bias on the matter either way, seems to me that from the victim side, if they act quickly after the incident, there is likely enough evidence obtainable around the alleged rape site, let alone on or in the victim [in either sex] to confirm a case, and so the victim ought to be believed once a formal charge has been filed from the victim to police. I could care less about the public at large; in any case, they are likely far enough removed from the incident to have any valid reason to believe or not, but, of course, they will have an opinion. Timing is a huge factor, and, to me [yes, it is a personal opinion] the case of Dr. Ford against Justice Kavanaugh, being almost 30 years ago, is just a little but to late in accusation to be credible. Believe her, when at the time of the alleged incident, she said nothing? That's a bridge too far. That's an accusation having too little possibility of there being credible evidence or witness. Certainly not her own "witness." 
#38
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@fauxlaw
The entire field of psychology would like a word with you
#39
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
The entire field of psychology would like a word with you
And if it does, what then?

#40
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Athias
then psychology would lecture Faxlaw about survivor's guilt, about victim-blaming, about gaslighting,  and all sorts of principles that contribute to survivors of horrendous tragedies bottling up their emotions instead of reporting the crime. 
#41
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
then psychology would lecture Faxlaw about survivor's guilt, about victim-blaming, about gaslighting, 
Because the field of psychology has the "authority" to "lecture" on that which are essentially tone arguments?

and all sorts of principles that contribute to survivors of horrendous tragedies bottling up their emotions instead of reporting the crime. 
You do know that psychology is a soft science, and that emotions are essentially subjective, right?
#42
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Athias
"soft science" as you say us based on neurology, psychology is much a "soft science" as cosmology is. That is to say not at all - yes emotions are "subjective" but being subjective does not mean that it can not be qualified - nor does it make it somehow "inferior" to what you would call hard science. All science is based on interpretation of observation, the difference is that we have less ways to numerically quantify emotions, though we are getting closer. 


#43
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
"soft science" as you say us based on neurology, psychology is much a "soft science" as cosmology is.
Non-factual. Psychology is not based on neurology. Neuroscience incorporates psychology, but it is not a logical biconditional. Neuroscience is a hard science. Psychology is a soft-science. And you can dispute that all you want, just do the research to verify and/or falsify that fact.

That is to say not at all - yes emotions are "subjective"
Yes, I know.

but being subjective does not mean that it can not be qualified
No one said it cannot be "qualified." Psychology on the other hand, as a field, presumes to be in the realm of "quanta," and it's not.

nor does it make it somehow "inferior" to what you would call hard science.
It is inferior when it presumes to make "quantified" assertions.

All science is based on interpretation of observation.
Yes.

the difference is that we have less ways to numerically quantify emotions, though we are getting closer. 
It's not that we have fewer ways. We can't. Emotions are abstract and unquantifiable.
#44
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Athias
Just as everything else, it is based on the interpretation of observation, solar flare spots are subjectively measured, it has to do with a metric supplied, you don't like the metric of measuring behavioral responses. Because all of that is BASED in neurology, that's how ALL Psychology works necessarily. It does have quantified conclusions because you can quantify behavior ande use neuroscience to hold up conclusions, its rather a simple thing. You not understanding speaks more of your internal biases than anything else. 
#45
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
Just as everything else, it is based on the interpretation of observation, solar flare spots are subjectively measured, it has to do with a metric supplied,
Yes, evidently.

you don't like the metric of measuring behavioral responses.
My "not liking" it is of no consequence. The metric is not affixed to a quantifiable standard. That is the key difference.

Because all of that is BASED in neurology, that's how ALL Psychology works necessarily.
No, it's not. Neurology spans beyond psychology delving in the functions of brain, the nervous system, etc. Pyschology attempts assertions based on what it considers normal (social not endocrinal) behaviors. Psychology can use neuroscience as well as endocrinology, but it's not necessarily based on it.

It does have quantified conclusions because you can quantify behavior ande use neuroscience to hold up conclusions, its rather a simple thing.
No. Behaviors can be quantified. Psychological assessments of them cannot.



#46
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Athias
Wrong - the metrics that are "normal" are simply what has causally been proven to be most healthy for the average of humanity - which is the EXACT SAME WAY that lots of things are measured. Why is one thing being subjectively measured and claiming to be quantifiable any different than any other thing? Answer: It's not - you have a specific bias against psychology 
#47
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
Wrong - the metrics that are "normal" are simply what has causally been proven to be most healthy for the average of humanity -
No, they are not "proven" to be healthy for the average human being. They are prescriptive based on the psychologist's notions of "normal."

which is the EXACT SAME WAY that lots of things are measured.
Yes, there are many soft sciences.

Why is one thing being subjectively measured and claiming to be quantifiable any different than any other thing?
Being quantifiable and claiming to be quantifiable are not the same thing. In fact, the latter is a lie.

Answer: It's not - you have a specific bias against psychology 
I do not have a bias. I pay heed to the distinctions between psychology, psychiatry, and neurology. You're conflating all three in your tout of the psychological field's "authority" over the subject of emotions in an attempt to invalidate fauxlaw's response. Is the bias mine or yours?

#48
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Athias
No - I have not said they are the same - I have said psychology is BASED on neurology. There is a difference - and as I said - like neuroscience? Because neuroscience goes off of the exact same principle, how you ascribe something being a "soft science" is how ALL science is. 
#49
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Theweakeredge
Should the entire field find me, I'm glad to offer them an hour to discuss. Credentials will be necessary to begin discussion, because I will not bother with a waste of time with quacks. I have quite enough ducks at a pond near my home who carry on a more enjoyable conversation.
#50
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
No - I have not said they are the same - I have said psychology is BASED on neurology.
Psychology as a field is not (necessarily) based on neurology. It can use neurological findings to make its essentially assumptive interpretations, but neurology is not the foundation of psychology.

Because neuroscience goes off of the exact same principle, how you ascribe something being a "soft science" is how ALL science is. 
I've already made the distinction between a hard and soft science.
#51
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Athias
you've made appeals to your own rationale, but no, you have not pragmatically separated the fields.

The mind is nothing more than an emergent property of the brain, psychology is necessarily neurology (see now I'm making the claim you thought I did previously) - and as such - each claim made is based on the consciousness and its principles which are NEUROLOGIC 
#52
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TheUnderdog
All women should be heard, belief should follow of the evidence warrants. I don’t see why this is such a controversial discussion, we should be using the same standards as we do for everything else in life.

#53
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@fauxlaw
Timing is a huge factor, and, to me [yes, it is a personal opinion] the case of Dr. Ford against Justice Kavanaugh, being almost 30 years ago, is just a little but to late in accusation to be credible. Believe her, when at the time of the alleged incident, she said nothing? That's a bridge too far.
Timing has nothing to do with it. Most rapes go unreported and Dr. Ford is another example of why.

Given the entirety of the situation, I find it absurd to claim it more likely did not happen than it did. Dr. Ford had nothing to gain, and Kavanaugh’s handling of it screamed guilty. At the very least it should have disqualified him from contention.
#54
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
Given the entirety of the situation, I find it absurd to claim it more likely did not happen than it did. Dr. Ford had nothing to gain, and Kavanaugh’s handling of it screamed guilty.
Do you not see the irony of that statement? First that your find the "it did happen" to be the more likely scenario, and claim Kavanaugh's handling tells you it did? When Ford's own "supporter" witnesses did not back Ford's claims?  Uh-huh, sure. Tell it to someone who did not watch the proceedings.

Timing has nothing to do with it. 
The evidence, like visitors compared to stinking fish, goes stinky with time, as with the visitors/stinking fish.

Two ironies in one post. Amazing.
#55
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@Theweakeredge
The fact that there was a high INTERVIEW RATE does not correspond with the rate of cases observed, in other words  less than 40 cases of rape were in that statistic you cited - because you read it wrong. You see - I'm taking my interpretation straight from the actual study, you are misinterpreting it, and your condescension is getting annoying. They, in total, interviewed that many people - but the amount of people's case s they actually followed (as in - knew whether the person alleged with rape was arrested and charged) was less than 40. As I said - a small sample size. 

The only reason I mentioned the 16,000 people interviewed was to demonstrate that it was a large, and I'd argue likely pretty representative sample.

The sample size is not less than forty. Of the people who reported being raped, only 32 occurred within one year of the call. The other accusations of rape occurred over some point in the lifetimes of the respondent that was longer than 12 months ago. So, if you want to say that the others don't matter because they happened more than one year ago and take them out of my sample size, I would like to know on what grounds you are justifying that.

From your direct quote of the study: Because only 24 women and 8 men reported during their interviews that they had been raped in the 12 months preceding the survey. All that says is that the hundreds of other reported cases occurred more than 12 months ago so annual estimates should be taken with a grain of salt.

You act like all of the data is based solely on the 32 and they threw out all of the others.


your condescension is getting annoying
I agree. As are your false attributions of malintent. Let's be civilized here.
#56
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
It's assumed anyone coming in to file a complaint is telling the truth. Whether a theft or a rape or a domestic violence. You then have to prove guilt. In a they said they said a jury has to decide who seems honest when no physical evidence exists. The system isn't 100% for either side. Though in the case of rape I have no idea why anyone would just assume a women would lie about it when it's probably the most horrible thing to have happened to her. Some have been lead to pick man that were not the involved like the Making a Murder case where her attacker wore a mask and they told her he was a know rapist in the area. But in general most who go to the police are not making it up. Just like some kids are lead to say they have been molested doesn't mean a child should be ignored when they say they have been assaulted. 
#57
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@bmdrocks21
So you see - there are more than 90,000 rape cases annually - so using a statistic that gets it samples from less than 40 cases is non-representative - it is simply not a large enough sample size to represent the entire population of rapes (not even globally - just in the US) - so that "17.6%" is wrong at best. 
#58
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
you've made appeals to your own rationale, but no, you have not pragmatically separated the fields.

The mind is nothing more than an emergent property of the brain, psychology is necessarily neurology (see now I'm making the claim you thought I did previously) - and as such - each claim made is based on the consciousness and its principles which are NEUROLOGIC 
No, it isn't. You're imputing a false equivalence. The mind may be (or may not be) an emergent property of the brain, but psychology isn't an emergent property or discipline of the mind. Psychology's conclusions about the mind are primary assumptive. They're based on consensus, not controlled and substantively reproducible observations. Neurology on the other hand focuses on the brain and the nervous system, and those working in the field can make a controlled assessment of the brain's functions independent of whether the rest of those in their field agree with them. Neurology incorporates psychology; that does not make psychology necessarily neurological in basis or foundation.

#59
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Athias
And do you know what that consensus is made of? " controlled and substantively reproducible observations" just like literally every other field
#60
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
And do you know what that consensus is made of? " controlled and substantively reproducible observations" just like literally every other field
No, they're not. Consensus is necessary merely by agreement. The reasoning behind it is of no consequence, because the consensus itself psychologists purports offers the substantiation.