"I Know Brett Kavanaugh, But I Wouldn't Confirm Him"

[Albion]

Keeping in mind that he was still serving on the court at the time of his confirmation hearing and the hearing has raised a number of ethical complaints and some reevaluations of his service such that this is now in question. If this is your standard, then he was, at the very least, confirmed prematurely.

Have you forgotten that all of that was investigated at the demand of the judge's opponents and found to be without merit? And that the confirmation vote came AFTER it?

 

[AllButNone]

Have you forgotten that all of that was investigated at the demand of the judge's opponents and found to be without merit? And that the confirmation vote came AFTER it?

Now you're confusing the topic of discussion with the rape allegations.

*edit, not rape, sexual assault

 

[Albion]

Now you're confusing the topic of discussion with the rape allegations.

What rape allegations?

 

[AllButNone]

What rape allegations?

Sorry, sexual assault allegations, thanks for the correction. (Though Swetnick did accuse gang rape, I did not mean to refer to that.)

*Edit, now care to address your own error?

 

[Fantine]

The Federal District Court in Denver is investigating twelve ethics complaints leveled against Kavanaugh before his appointment. They were referred to Justice Roberts who handed them over to the Denver court to insure impartiality.

 

[NotreDame]

The same critique broadly applies to "should be", as well.

"Will be" is a concern if one cares about the prestige of the court.

You keep insisting your analysis is objective, but insistence doesn't make it so. There are alternate explanations for Kavanaugh's outburst. Your argument is contingent on a -big- assumption about him as a person, and that's that his emotional response falls under your perception of what's normal. But something that is true is that not everybody has the same emotional response to the same situation, and that you can't acknowledge this is extremely problematic for your own argument.

No, the reasoning and argument I have articulated is not based upon any assumption of "what's normal." Normalcy, irregularity, abnormal, simply are not components of my argument and as a result, my argument is not based upon any assumption involving those components.

Neither is my argument concerned with whether some people, many people, most people, or anyone, has the same "emotional response to the same situation." Hence, what you identify as "problematic for my argument" is not problematic, because my argument is not concerned with what you identify as being "problematic." You've incorporated into my argument elements and reasoning that my argument does not raise and is not dependent upon. That is problematic.

An alternate explanation for his outburst is that his outrage was calculated. There are pieces of evidence that fit this--that he has plenty of courtroom experience, that he went onto a partisan network to persuade an audience, an irregular op-ed in the WSJ, that he had time in advance to prepare his remarks. There are other alternate explanations that match the facts as well.

The "calculated" aspect has been addressed previously. Sure, Kavanaugh's outburst on 9/27 could have been calculated but this is not the issue my argument addresses or seeks to address. Neither does my argument deny the possibility of some of Kavanaugh's remarks on 9/27 as "calculated."

[QUOTE/But it is not objectively true and this is the problem. (see below) And I'm not sure why somebody as smart as you won't concede this basic point.[/QUOTE]

Spare me the subtle insult, obscured with flattery, and wrapped in language my argument does not invoke. How about I use the converse of your reasoning and say to you, "And I'm not sure why somebody as smart as you won't concede" the basic point that Kavanaugh's conduct on 9/27 does not establish he will be partial on the bench. Let's dispense

Now, let's set the record straight because, so far, you have gone off into the unpleasant land of tangents.

1. I never used the phrase "objectively true." I am not even familiar with the meaning of the phrase "objectively true." In fact, I cannot recall on any prior occasion ever seeing, reading, or hearing the phrase "objectively true" used.
2. My argument is not concerned with what is or is not normal.
3. My argument is not concerned with whether anyone will have the same "emotional response to the same situation."

You have conflated my rather easy to follow argument to include a plethora of sub-issues not germane to my argument.

I'm not disputing that his 12 years on the bench is a valuable indicator of his future performance. But it's only a part of the calculus. As you well know, "this happened in the past therefore this will happen in the future" is not sound logic. Oversight of the supreme court works differently than oversight of the lower court, and it's a pretty big assumption that a person operating under different constraints will behave in the same way as he'd previously behaved. This does not mean his record is useless, I personally can't think of a better single piece of evidence of his future performance. But the important word here is "single", and a recent and significant event does raise questions, including changing some of the prior assumptions under which his record was evaluated.

You've cited the ABA's recommendation, but you've neglected to mention that they too are reevaluating their assessment of Kavanaugh and asked the Senate to hold off on its vote. New information requires reassessment of previous positions.

My argument is not the mindless, simplistic "happened in the past, therefore, this will happen in the future." Rather, the argument is based upon behaviors of a human being while at work, behaviors not created in a day but behaviors repeatedly engaged in for 12 years while at work, and established as a norm, as a modus operandi based on the repeated behavior over a 12 year span in a particular context, in a specific setting, in relation to other people, in relation to stimulus. But not just 12 years of any work. The 12 years of work included similar, in some instances, identical work he will be performing while on the U.S. Supreme Court. Indeed, the vast majority of his 12 years of labor is similar or identical to the work he will be undertaking while on SCOTUS. That's pretty compelling evidence of who Kavanaugh will be, likely will be, will be according to some amount of probability, impartial.

In addition, the ABA recommendation is based upon, in part, a review of his 12 years of work. The review goes beyond merely reviewing decisions he authored, his concurrences, and his dissents. The ABA review includes interviews with his colleagues while he was on the court for 12 years. The ABA is also known to interview some of the parties who argued a case before a panel of judges that included Brett Kavanaugh. He received a "Well Qualified" rating that was based upon, in part, the aforementioned information. (ABA is NOT reevaluating their "Well Qualified" rating.) It is doubtful Kavanaugh receives a "Well Qualified" rating if there is consistent information he has been biased, in other words partial against or for a party/parties before him, and he did not fairly listen to the arguments. That's pretty compelling evidence as well.

Does this evidence reflect how Kavanaugh is likely to conduct himself on SCOTUS? Yes.

What about his conduct in a non-judicial setting where he is invited to freely express his thoughts?Does his conduct on 9/27 "raise questions"? Sure, but so what? Questions pre-existed the 9/27 conduct of Brett Kavanaugh. In fact, Democrats had "questions" before Trump had formally nominated anyone. Many people and several media outlets also had "questions" for any nomination was made. There have questions pertaining to many prior nominees. Brett Kavanaugh is not some novelty because people have questions. The fact someone, or some people, have questions is not reflective of who he will be on the Court or how he will conduct himself on the Court.

I have questions of my own, pertaining to whether Kavanaugh will be impartial, i.e. not biased for or against a party before him, while on the Court if the Democratic Party, or perhaps Senate Democrats, are a party to a case before SCOTUS. But rationally, the fact I have questions is not reflective or an indication of who Kavanaugh is likely to be or will be while on SCOTUS.

By putting the onus on the left, you've essentially relying on an argument from ignorance. "If they can't persuade he's unfit, then he is fit." But this is an inherently subjective evaluation, there's no possible way the left could ever clear this hurdle in any situation that is likely to arise. Your own statement can't be right.

You have transformed my statement regarding the burden of proof into a Strawman statement, and the very content of the Strawman statement itself lacks the characteristic of rationality.

My statement of, "If the left is going to claim he will be biased on the bench because of what he said on 9/27 then it is up to the left to persuade how and why his recent action shows he will be biased and how and why he will conduct himself in a biased manner while on the Court," is not equivalent to the mind numbing Strawman of, "If they can't persuade he's unfit, then he is fit."

My italicized statement is asserting the left has a burden of proof, and they do. To say someone has a burden of proof is to say nothing more than the person, subject, or side of a debate, has a responsibility of providing evidence, argument, or both, in support of their conclusion. My italicized remark above is to say the left has the burden of arguing how and why Kavanaugh's conduct on 9/27 renders him biased when he sits on the bench, or likely to be biased or some probability of being biased.

It is absolutely crazy and irrational to treat a statement that someone, some side, in an argument, in a debate, has a burden of proof to be the equivalent to saying if the burden of proof is not met, then the opposite of the claim is true. My assertion the left has a burden of proof is not to say if their burden is not met, then the opposite of their claim is true. The fact is, the left's claim may in fact be true, and correct, without any argument or evidence. The left's claim may be true despite the fact the argument and evidence does not persuasively support the conclusion. However, failing to meet the burden of proof only means they could not persuasively, by evidence, argument, or both, show the claim to be true by some measure of probability (likely true, more likely than not, beyond a reasonable doubt, etcetera). I am not remotely asserting if the left fails to show Kavanaugh is unfit, then this means he is fit.

So, you are very much wrong in your statement that my remark is the equivalent of saying Kavanaugh is fit if leftists cannot show he is unfit.

It's also not possible for Kavanaugh to persuade he's fit for the same reason

Nonsense! Kavanaugh and his supporters have a burden of proof of showing Kavanaugh will be, or is likely to be, or to some degree of probability will be, impartial on the bench. And the notion they have a burden of proof is not to say "If they (he) cannot persuade he's fit, then he is unfit."

Just because it's not achievable doesn't mean it should be abandoned.

That statement makes sense to you? If there is absolutely zero chance, no possibility, of achieving bipartisan support for a nominee, then it makes sense to futilely seek it anyway?

But my position is based on how the left (and frankly, the middle) will respond. A candidate without inflammatory rhetoric under his belt gives less grounds for criticism than one with inflammatory rhetoric. All other things being equal, and if one cares about the appearance of the court, the candidate without the inflammatory rhetoric is preferable. There shouldn't even be a debate about this question. The debate should be over how preferable.

My remark addressed the question of "how preferable." I said, "Should it? You clearly base this analysis on the comment. So, rationally, the answer to your query is how to treat his remarks on 9/27. If he is as “well qualified,” ABA designation, as the other candidates, and ABA did say he was “well qualified,” then do his remarks, and the other candidates lack of them, make him less preferable? No. Why? For reasons previously devoted to the topic of his remarks. Given the context, his remarks do not render him less preferable."

 

[sdowney717]

I just keep remembering Chuck Schumer saying they will oppose Trump's nomination of Supreme Court judge by 'any means necessary.' I remember the day Trump was going to announce who his pick was and protestors were already outside of the Capital. They had professionally-made signs with his name on them. That said they were ready to oppose the nominee and had pre-made signs for everyone on Trump's list before they were even nominated.

During the last hearing, it was revealed the Democrats have already created websites and have URLs prepared to oppose the next judge Trump might appoint.

I witnessed the circus that the Democrats turned the hearings into. They NEVER gave Kavanaugh a change. They DID call him evil and lied to the American people, saying he will murder millions of people. They said he would repeal Roe vs. Wade, when he already stated he considered it set law. They made up these lies to stir up their base.

They staged protests and outbursts during the hearing. Protestors who were removed from the building were captured outside receiving money. All the chaos during the hearing was coordinated by the Democrats.

Kavanaugh hearing chaos coordinated by Schumer, top Dems

Even after sitting with every member of the Senate personally, and 4 days of hearings, and three months after being nominated, the Democrats pull a fast one. Right before it's time to vote, someone leaks that there's an accusation against him. And by golly, several more in rapid succession keep hitting, one more ridiculous than the next.

There are massive holes in Dr. Ford's story. The third accuser just this morning walked back several of her accusations. The New York Times wouldn't even print several accusations because they just weren't credible. The person who made up the yacht story recanted and apologized for making a mistake.

So, why in the world would I believe any Democrat at this point? When were they ever reasonable during this entire process? All they care about is stopping Trump's nominee. They're already prepared to take down the next person, whoever it may be, in case this doesn't work out.

I'm sorry, but I have rolled my eyes every single liberal media outlet decrying the same ridiculous things over and over again.

There is zero evidence against Kananaugh. An accusation means NOTHING at this point. And if it's true and it really did happen, the Democrats have CHEAPENED the whole process. From ridiculous Spartacus moments to outright lies and stalls from the left, I do hope Americans were paying attention and saw through all the noise and fake outrage.

Definitely a tangled web is woven by her, I found her not credible at all.
"O, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive!"
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/10/dr_fords_willfully_tangled_web.html

 

[NotreDame]

I've given some thought about how to restate my own position a little more clearly.

Why should Kavanaugh get the job? If I'm understanding your argument correctly, you're saying, "because he is fit for the position". Which leads to the next question. How do we know he's fit? Your argument seems to be "we know he's fit because he's met some evidentiary standard." Which is perfectly reasonable, and I agree wholeheartedly with this direction of thought.

Where I disagree with you is your choice of evidentiary standard. A person being given a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land, where his decisions will affect hundreds of millions, and he's not under the same ethical oversight as in lower courts, should be held to the highest evidentiary standard when it comes to the question of "is this person fit".

What I've been arguing, mistakenly, is the consequence of not meeting this evidentiary standard (which I do think is damaging to the supreme court) and that seems to be muddying the discussion.

*Late edit, what I've misunderstood is that you disagree with this evidentiary standard. (Why, and what standard is applicable?)

I understand your complaints about the politics of it all. Partisans both left and right have shown no interest in this issue, and the discussion should not be about what course of action politicians will take. Partisans will be partisans. The question here is, "what's the appropriate standard for a supreme court nominee and has Kavanaugh met that".

The disagreement is more focused upon the question of which evidence is most compelling in relation to the issue of whether Kavanaugh will be impartial on the bench, i.e. will not have a bias for or against people and parties appearing before him. For reasons previously noted, his 12 years on the D.C. Court, how he conducted himself during those 12 years, and his ABA rating, which was based in part on scrutiny of his 12 years on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, is more compelling than his conduct on 9/27.

The other side of the debate has taken the position Kavanaugh's remarks, in a non-judicial setting, a setting in which he was invited to voice his opinion, a setting in which he is permitted to vent, there is precedent for venting, shows he will be biased on the bench, despite the fact he has an established 12 year track record to the contrary. That argument I find to be unpersuasive.

 

[AllButNone]

I said I'd give you the last word. So I'll try to be quick about this.

1. I never used the phrase "objectively true." I am not even familiar with the meaning of the phrase "objectively true."

You did not use the phrase objectively true. You have not used the word objective at all. But you did say you weren't subjectively evaluating the context, and your argument depended on that context. If it's not subjective, it must be objective, ie objective truth. Hence, objectively true. Have I misrepresented you? If I have, please clarify.

You have conflated my rather easy to follow argument to include a plethora of sub-issues not germane to my argument.

You know, I felt exactly the same way responding to your previous post! Kind of why I wrote the second post a day later. I suspect we're looking at this issue very differently in a way we're not likely to reconcile.

The disagreement is more focused upon the question of which evidence is most compelling

And this confirms the above. If I'm interpreting you correctly, this isn't the correct question. That you believe it is, and that I believe it isn't, is our disagreement.

The biggest problem is that such a frame is contingent on all evidence being accumulated meticulously, fairly and impartially. If this isn't the case, then the question itself unfairly weights the answer for which the most evidence known, not necessarily the answer for which the most evidence exists. (Ie, hasty generalization.)

Another problem is that Kavanaugh's fitness isn't an all or none proposition nor is the state of our knowledge. "He is fit", "He is not fit", "We do not know if he is fit", "He is likely fit", are all possible, but the only thing that matters is the strength of the claim "he is fit", thus the burden of proof is entirely on Kavanaugh (and others who want to assert he is fit), and so it's not about "which is more compelling" but solely "how compelling is".

Everybody is going to be subjective on the latter point. This segues into a bunch of other more complex questions. All things given, I don't think we're likely to agree on the above.

Additional points of disagreement:
-Kavanaugh is allowed to vent, I have no issue with venting itself, and I don't think venting itself should be held against him. The venting isn't the issue, it's what he said.
-Agree, non-judicial setting, but it's not clear to me that there's a hard psychological line between who a person is in a judicial setting and outside of one.
-I'm not 100% persuaded by a 12 year track record because it assumes a false equivalence between the supreme court and 10th circuit. Also the argument ignores the proximity of events. It's important, but not conclusive.

Mostly, I'm in the, "I do not know if Kavanaugh is fit" camp, but I have to take the side of the people who object to Kavanaugh's appointment because I believe there are better candidates that don't have the same baggage.

 

[AllButNone]

That statement makes sense to you?

Oh yeah, one other thing. It doesn't to you? Do you not believe in partial achievements or something?

 

[NotreDame]

You know, I felt exactly the same way responding to your previous post! Kind of why I wrote the second post a day later. I suspect we're looking at this issue very differently in a way we're not likely to reconcile.



And this confirms the above. If I'm interpreting you correctly, this isn't the correct question. That you believe it is, and that I believe it isn't, is our disagreement.

The biggest problem is that such a frame is contingent on all evidence being accumulated meticulously, fairly and impartially. If this isn't the case, then the question itself unfairly weights the answer for which the most evidence known, not necessarily the answer for which the most evidence exists. (Ie, hasty generalization.)

Another problem is that Kavanaugh's fitness isn't an all or none proposition nor is the state of our knowledge. "He is fit", "He is not fit", "We do not know if he is fit", "He is likely fit", are all possible, but the only thing that matters is the strength of the claim "he is fit", thus the burden of proof is entirely on Kavanaugh (and others who want to assert he is fit), and so it's not about "which is more compelling" but solely "how compelling is".

Everybody is going to be subjective on the latter point. This segues into a bunch of other more complex questions. All things given, I don't think we're likely to agree on the above.

Additional points of disagreement:
-Kavanaugh is allowed to vent, I have no issue with venting itself, and I don't think venting itself should be held against him. The venting isn't the issue, it's what he said.
-Agree, non-judicial setting, but it's not clear to me that there's a hard psychological line between who a person is in a judicial setting and outside of one.
-I'm not 100% persuaded by a 12 year track record because it assumes a false equivalence between the supreme court and 10th circuit. Also the argument ignores the proximity of events. It's important, but not conclusive.

Mostly, I'm in the, "I do not know if Kavanaugh is fit" camp, but I have to take the side of the people who object to Kavanaugh's appointment because I believe there are better candidates that don't have the same baggage.

I said I'd give you the last word. So I'll try to be quick about this.

I am not looking for the last word man. I am seeking a productive dialogue. If you have time to respond, great. If you do not have time to respond, I do not construe a lack of response as the equivalent of raising any white flag.

But you did say you weren't subjectively evaluating the context, and your argument depended on that context. If it's not subjective, it must be objective, ie objective truth. Hence, objectively true. Have I misrepresented you? If I have, please clarify.

The argument by some, not you, has been nothing more than they feel he is biased, or that from their perspective he is biased. Well, welcome to the club, a club in which there are variant feelings by people on the subject, and diversified perspectives. However, the feelings and perspectives are subjective evaluations and tell us nothing as to whether Kavanaugh is biased. More is needed than I feel or perceive Kavanaugh is biased because of his demeanor and conduct on 9/27. What else is needed? Facts, logical analysis, and a lucid argument of how and why Kavanaugh's conduct and demeanor on 9/27 renders him biased or justifies a perception of bias, and that is what I am referring to in making a distinction between the subjective evaluation and the objective one.

The biggest problem is that such a frame is contingent on all evidence being accumulated meticulously, fairly and impartially. If this isn't the case, then the question itself unfairly weights the answer for which the most evidence known, not necessarily the answer for which the most evidence exists. (Ie, hasty generalization.)

But, it is not rational to contest, or question, a conclusion or a claim that rests upon evidence, on the basis there may be more evidence in existence. Could there be more evidence unknown to us? Yes but that is always true and is hardly an indictment of any argument that takes a position on the basis of evidence known to us.

Another problem is that Kavanaugh's fitness isn't an all or none proposition nor is the state of our knowledge. "He is fit", "He is not fit", "We do not know if he is fit", "He is likely fit", are all possible, but the only thing that matters is the strength of the claim "he is fit", thus the burden of proof is entirely on Kavanaugh (and others who want to assert he is fit), and so it's not about "which is more compelling" but solely "how compelling is".

Well, this ignores the fact there has been evidence submitted which supports the view Kavanaugh is "fit" for the Court. People opposed to Kavanaugh have challenged this conclusion by invoking his demeanor and conduct on 9/27. The people asserting Kavanaugh is not fit, because he is biased, and his demeanor and conduct on 9/27 is evidence, also have a burden of proof.

Agree, non-judicial setting, but it's not clear to me that there's a hard psychological line between who a person is in a judicial setting and outside of one.

Really? The notion of a person who behaves and conducts himself differently while on the job than they do off the job is a novel phenomenon? Doubtful. I am inclined to think there are many people who conduct themselves differently while on the job than off of the job. This is perhaps especially true for some professions, such as lawyers, doctors, two professions in which the job requires a particular demeanor and behavior that is not exhibited except for when one is officially acting as a doctor/lawyer.

Indeed, Justice Roberts, speaking to the University of Minnesota, expressed disgust towards the Westboro Baptists conduct towards military funerals, and stated his own personal opinion is to lock them up and throw away the key. Yet, that personal loathing for the Westboro Baptists, and his own pejorative remark about them, was not how he conducted himself personally when writing the opinion about their 1st Amendment Free Speech rights.

I would be remiss for failing to reference the black attorney who represented the KKK in court, despite his private and personal disgust for the organization. There were Supreme Court Justices who personally did not find as palatable Hustler Magazine's treatment of Jerry Falwell in a Campari ad. Yet, despite their dislike for what Hustler said, those justices were able to rule for Hustler Magazine.

The point I am making is in the legal profession, there is a pride, an integrity, and an expectation, that lawyers and judges routinely represent clients, defend causes, and rule for parties, they personally find repulsive, repugnant, disgusting, and distasteful.

I'm not 100% persuaded by a 12 year track record because it assumes a false equivalence between the supreme court and 10th circuit. Also the argument ignores the proximity of events. It's important, but not conclusive.

False equivalence? How? He will be doing the same job! And, his nomination to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals was successfully impeded for three years by Senate Democrats. He was eventually appointed to the D.C. Circuit and served for 12 years. During those 12 years, which came after obstruction efforts by Senate Democrats, he accumulated a record of service on the D.C. Circuit which contributed, in part, to a well qualified rating by the ABA, and no substantial evidence of being unfit or biased.

but I have to take the side of the people who object to Kavanaugh's appointment because I believe there are better candidates that don't have the same baggage

That's a problem, an issue, as you see "baggage," whereas others see something different.

 

[AllButNone]

I actually don't have a lot of time, so I'm going to skip a bit of your post and focus on the things that I think are key. (It does feel suspiciously like a debate, however!)

But, it is not rational to contest, or question, a conclusion or a claim that rests upon evidence, on the basis there may be more evidence in existence. Could there be more evidence unknown to us? Yes but that is always true and is hardly an indictment of any argument that takes a position on the basis of evidence known to us.

This is a good issue to raise. And it helps illustrate why I feel Kavanaugh disqualified himself. I don't want to sound condescending with the following (sincere comment), but it's a childish example so it will, fair warning. Imagine a person at a beach who collects seashells. He brings his collection to another person, who has no concept of a beach. This second person sees the seashells, and some flecks of sand with the shells, and then draws the conclusion that the beach is mostly made of seashells. It's a mistaken inference because the method of observation wasn't taken into account. The only thing that can be inferred is that sand and seashells are both a part of the composition of the beach.

At the same time, the second person would also be off his rocker to conclude "the beach has diamonds" or something else not warranted by the evidence. (Though it also doesn't mean the beach doesn't have diamonds, merely that it's not rational to conclude it does.)

Relating this to Kavanaugh, we have a fleck of something. What conclusions can be drawn? Not a whole lot, but it raises questions and points at new things to look at, and these questions will go unresolved. For other appointees, this same fleck isn't apparent and while that doesn't rule out the existence of such a fleck somewhere, just as a practical consideration some line has to be drawn. (And people are looking for flecks.)

What I believe, specifically, is that Kavanaugh crossed the aforementioned line with his outburst. (that's his baggage, new questions, new things to look at)

(Side note: I'm not sure how the field of law addresses observer problems, even the "reasonable doubt" standard in criminal law isn't enough to overcome this problem. Though "reasonable doubt" seems like a good compromise between practical and ideal, and other applied fields use a similar standard.)

False equivalence? How? He will be doing the same job!

But a different setting. I'd like to highlight this argument, which I've seen tossed around in many places over the years. Specifically there's a different type of ethics oversight, as just one of the differences. Do you believe setting and environment have no bearing on a person's actions?

Well, this ignores the fact there has been evidence submitted which supports the view Kavanaugh is "fit" for the Court. People opposed to Kavanaugh have challenged this conclusion by invoking his demeanor and conduct on 9/27. The people asserting Kavanaugh is not fit, because he is biased, and his demeanor and conduct on 9/27 is evidence, also have a burden of proof.

I want to distinguish between two arguments. The argument that (a) he is not fit, and (b) his fitness has not been established (the exact question is whether he can be trusted to be impartial). I'm not interested in (a). While I think there are some points of evidence for (a) on other matters (Whelan smear), I do agree that for claim (a) there is burden of proof, and I'm not in any way prepared to defend (a). I believe I've addressed (b) above in the post, I am not ignoring submitted evidence, my position is that you're drawing a stronger conclusion from the evidence than is warranted.

 

[NotreDame]

I actually don't have a lot of time, so I'm going to skip a bit of your post and focus on the things that I think are key. (It does feel suspiciously like a debate, however!)


At the same time, the second person would also be off his rocker to conclude "the beach has diamonds" or something else not warranted by the evidence. (Though it also doesn't mean the beach doesn't have diamonds, merely that it's not rational to conclude it does.)

Relating this to Kavanaugh, we have a fleck of something. What conclusions can be drawn? Not a whole lot, but it raises questions and points at new things to look at, and these questions will go unresolved. For other appointees, this same fleck isn't apparent and while that doesn't rule out the existence of such a fleck somewhere, just as a practical consideration some line has to be drawn. (And people are looking for flecks.)

What I believe, specifically, is that Kavanaugh crossed the aforementioned line with his outburst. (that's his baggage, new questions, new things to look at)

(Side note: I'm not sure how the field of law addresses observer problems, even the "reasonable doubt" standard in criminal law isn't enough to overcome this problem. Though "reasonable doubt" seems like a good compromise between practical and ideal, and other applied fields use a similar standard.)



But a different setting. I'd like to highlight this argument, which I've seen tossed around in many places over the years. Specifically there's a different type of ethics oversight, as just one of the differences. Do you believe setting and environment have no bearing on a person's actions?



I want to distinguish between two arguments. The argument that (a) he is not fit, and (b) his fitness has not been established (the exact question is whether he can be trusted to be impartial). I'm not interested in (a). While I think there are some points of evidence for (a) on other matters (Whelan smear), I do agree that for claim (a) there is burden of proof, and I'm not in any way prepared to defend (a). I believe I've addressed (b) above in the post, I am not ignoring submitted evidence, my position is that you're drawing a stronger conclusion from the evidence than is warranted.

Imagine a person at a beach who collects seashells. He brings his collection to another person, who has no concept of a beach. This second person sees the seashells, and some flecks of sand with the shells, and then draws the conclusion that the beach is mostly made of seashells. It's a mistaken inference because the method of observation wasn't taken into account. The only thing that can be inferred is that sand and seashells are both a part of the composition of the beach.

The problem with this analogy is your evaluation is based on the fact you know other evidence exists, specifically, the fact the beach is predominantly sand, is a fact known to you. This is not a very good illustration that the possibility of other facts or evidence may exist unknown to us, is rational criticism of a conclusion drawn on the available and known evidence, precisely because your example is evaluated on the basis of evidence and facts known to exist and known to you.

Since humans are not omniscient, there is always the possibility there is some evidence that was missed or not discovered. However, that fact does not weaken any conclusion based on known, and available evidence.

A criticism of evolution, in which evolution is a conclusion reached based on known and available evidence, isn’t the undeniable possibility there may exist evidence that has been missed or yet to be discovered.

Einstein’s notion of gravity as objects that warp space fabric, supported by evidence, isn’t refuted or weakened on the notion both Einstein and the scientific community may be missing other evidence.

Similarly, the undeniable possibility there may exist other evidence pertaining to Kavanaugh, evidence unknown and yet to be discovered, isn’t a criticism of drawing conclusions on the basis of the known and available evidence.

Relating this to Kavanaugh, we have a fleck of something.

This is illogically presumptuous. How do you know there is just a “fleck”? You assume there is more to be known and discovered in concluding there exists just a “fleck.” That assumption is problematic as it’s not at all clear, established, shown, demonstrated, or proven there is more to be discovered.

I have no ideas if it’s just a “fleck,” and more exists, or if nothing else exists and the “fleck” is all of it. I couldn’t care less really at this moment as there’s nothing to show, demonstrate, or establish, there is more. Instead, I’m focusing upon what is known, the evidence available to us, the facts as they have been revealed presently.

But a different setting. I'd like to highlight this argument, which I've seen tossed around in many places over the years. Specifically there's a different type of ethics oversight, as just one of the differences. Do you believe setting and environment have no bearing on a person's actions?

In answering your question, in fact I do. It’s hard to miss the fact setting and environment is an important aspect of my argument. I’ve relied on both to argue one setting/environment tells us very little, to nothing, about how Kavanaugh will be on the bench but another setting/environment does.

And there is no evidence or a cogent argument that the ethics constrained a Kavanaugh on the D.C. Circuit but the different ethics supervision for SCOTUS releases the dog from the leash to be an unrestrained, biased Justice.

my position is that you're drawing a stronger conclusion from the evidence than is warranted

Maybe I am, but you haven’t established I have. Neither is your argument that other evidence may exist, but is unknown to us, show or establish I’ve drawn a “stronger conclusion” than “warranted” by the evidence.

Whether the strength of the conclusion of evolution is proper isn’t ascertained by any notion somewhere out there, there might exist other evidence. The proper and prudent strength of Einstein’s conclusion gravity is the warping of space fabric, isn’t evaluated from the perspective something may have been missed.

Same is true here and for your argument. To be sure, the strength of my conclusion can be attacked, and there is a way to do it, but the idea other evidence may exist isn’t how to attack the strength of any conclusion drawn and based upon evidence, reasoning, both.

 

[AllButNone]

However, that fact does not weaken any conclusion based on known, and available evidence.

Not only have I given you a rational criticism, you've misunderstood the criticism and misrepresented my arguments on pretty much every front. There's no point in continuing this.

*Edit, I'll add in this.

What's the difference between abductive and inductive reasoning? Which one are you using? Which one am I using? What's the biggest problem with inductive reasoning? What's the biggest problem with abductive reasoning? Which is most appropriate to use in this case? How does the outburst affect any inference? (hint: Bayesian inference)

If you answer these questions, hopefully you'll see clearly where and why we disagree, where my arguments are coming from, how you're misrepresenting them, why the sand/seashell analogy is relevant, and that you are relying on a logical fallacy.

 

[AllButNone]

Giving this a little more thought. I don't know why I'm bothering, but going to respond to just a little bit...

The problem with this analogy is your evaluation is based on the fact you know other evidence exists, specifically, the fact the beach is...

No, that's not the problem with the analogy. I chose that as a feature, so that it would be easier to understand conceptually, but I certainly didn't have to. If it helps, suppose we have a bag filled with, say, 1000 marbles. We don't know anything about the marbles. So we pull one out. It's black. While we can infer all marbles in the bag are black, this is an extremely weak inference. So we pull out another one and it too is black. Again we can infer all marbles in the bag are black, but this is still a weak inference, though slightly stronger than before. The more marbles we pull out, the stronger our inference becomes, until we finally pull all marbles out of the bag and we no longer need to infer.

This is a part of the point I was trying to illustrate. The greater we reduce the unknowns, the stronger the inference. (This isn't quite, quite accurate, there's a better way to formulate this.) This is the most basic principle of inductive reasoning.

Now, I can already hear an objection, "but we know the number of unknowns in this case, 1000 marbles". And that is true, and such a situation gives us a mathematically precise method of quantifying our uncertainty. But the principle still holds even when the number of unknowns is unknown.

To show the specific focus on the unknowns, I'd like to contrast two scenarios. In one case we have have a bag with 101 marbles, and in another case we have a bag with a million marbles. In each case, suppose we've pulled out 100 marbles, and in each case all are black. It should be clear the inference "all marbles in the bag are black" is stronger when there are 101 marbles than when there are a million marbles, even though we've collected the same amount of evidence in each case.

Further, if our method of getting evidence is inherently biased, say for example, our method predisposes us towards pulling black marbles out of the bag, then our inference is that much weaker. But bias in observation is not, itself, easy to ascertain, though eliminating bias is a critical component of sound inference. If your inference depends on quantity or quality of evidence, then there's an onus on you to show that such evidence is gathered in an unbiased manner. Failing that, there's no reason to assume it has been.

So this statement...

Einstein’s notion of gravity as objects that warp space fabric, supported by evidence, isn’t refuted or weakened on the notion both Einstein and the scientific community may be missing other evidence.

Is false, at least the "weakens" part. And hopefully the marble bag analysis and an understanding of induction shows why. In science almost every theory (including GR) is held only as provisionally true, because we're dealing with an infinite marble bag. (though that doesn't mean such theories can't be very strongly held)

I really can't be bothered with rest, because you're thoroughly misrepresenting my arguments. If I had to guess, I think it's because you're trying to apply deductive principles to an abductive argument, while not recognizing that we're in the domain of induction.

And I feel you'll knee-jerk defensively respond.