Bill Cosby - how is this possible?

[Ormond]

What evidence is there? I am asking this honestly. Did Mia Farrow have a history of coaching her children to make false accusations? Woody Allen obviously had a history of being sexually attracted to his step daughters, so I am wondering what good piece of evidence would make you believe that Mia Farrow would traumatize her daughter by coaching her into believing she was sexually assaulted.

I don't have time to find a link to some of what I've read about the case -- perhaps I will tomorrow -- but I would like to point out that being sexually attracted to a 19 year old stepdaughter really does NOT predict that one would be sexually attracted to a seven year old stepdaughter!! Psychologically this is not the same thing.

[Athias]

While I realize witness testimony is the lowest form of evidence 20 people saying basically the same thing beats reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt has left the fucking building and wants nothing to do with Bill Cosby.

You're indulging an ad numerum fallacy--especially since it's 20 individual accounts. The number may affect your impressions, but it doesn't beat reasonable doubt.

Far from being 'beside the point', it's very much on point. Because on purely statistical grounds alone, before we even examine the specifics, it is much more likely that Cosby is guilty than that he has been falsely accused, simpy because false accusation is much rarer than genuine rape.

This is an ecological inference fallacy. The statistics neither determines his innocence nor his guilt.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

You're indulging an ad numerum fallacy--especially since it's 20 individual accounts. The number may affect your impressions, but it doesn't beat reasonable doubt.

This is an ecological inference fallacy. The statistics neither determines his innocence nor his guilt.

Frankly I think you're just misunderstanding these fallacies. In both cases they're only fallacies if people are trying to use them to construct logical arguments, or using them to argue absolute, determinative proof. You're perfectly entitled to use witnesses and statistics as evidence of the likelihood of something.

Belief beyond reasonable doubt does not require absolute, determinative proof (you aren't likely to get this for any claim). The number of witnesses absolutely does matter in belief beyond a reasonable doubt.

You are perfectly entitled to consult statistics to make a claim about what is more likely. This is not the same as the claim that consulting statistics makes something certain, which would be fallacious.

[Athias]

Frankly I think you're just misunderstanding these fallacies. In both cases they're only fallacies if people are trying to use them to construct logical arguments, or using them to argue absolute, determinative proof. You're perfectly entitled to use witnesses and statistics as evidence of the likelihood of something.

I haven't misunderstood them, OAR. I always assume these post consist of people constructing logical arguments, even if they're just expressing opinion. While true that a person is entitled to use witnesses and statistics as evidence in determining likeliness--though I don't remember stating that they weren't--their employment of the aforementioned is not inscrutible. An ecological inference fallacy is using statistical data of group relations to make inferences about individuals. So when I call this:

Because on purely statistical grounds alone, before we even examine the specifics, it is much more likely that Cosby is guilty than that he has been falsely accused, simpy because false accusation is much rarer than genuine rape.

an ecological inference fallacy, it's true--even if that inference is a judgement on likeliness. It doesn't mean that mormont is wrong. It's just means the way this argument is constructed is logically fallacious by the standard which I've pointed out.

Belief beyond reasonable doubt does not require absolute, determinative proof (you aren't likely to get this for any claim). The number of witnesses absolutely does matter in belief beyond a reasonable doubt.

Again, I'm not making these judgements--that is, it requires absolute, definitive proof. But the claim that 20 people accusing Bill Cosby of the same thing means that reasonable doubt has been beaten is fallacious. It relies on the premise that the veracity of an argument depends on the number of people who hold it to be true (ad numerum fallacy.) So if the argument is, "Bill Cosby has raped these women," the mere number of these women doesn't grant authority--especially since these women are attesting to their own individual accounts. Bill Cosby may have in fact raped just one of them--three of them--or none. Reasonable doubt is about meeting a reasonable standard of evidence.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

I haven't misunderstood them, OAR. I always assume these post consist of people constructing logical arguments, even if they're just expressing opinion. While true that a person is entitled to use witnesses and statistics as evidence in determining likeliness--though I don't remember stating that they weren't--

This is an ecological inference fallacy. The statistics neither determines his innocence nor his guilt.

^Here's where you shifted standards on the use of statistics.

though I don't remember stating that they weren't--their employment of the aforementioned is not inscrutible. An ecological inference fallacy is using statistical data of group relations to make inferences about individuals. So when I call this:

an ecological inference fallacy, it's true--even if that inference is a judgement on likeliness. It doesn't mean that mormont is wrong. It's just means the way this argument is constructed is logically fallacious by the standard which I've pointed out.

You're abusing the definition of the fallacy. It's not a fallacy in all cases to look at a statistic and use it to make claims on the likelihood of something. It simply isn't. You need to point to a more specific error in interpretation to claim that it is, and you haven't done that. This claim is about the likelihood of events- rape and false accusations of rape. If statistics bear out that one event is more likely than the other, there is no fallacy in claiming that the more likely event is more likely to have occurred.

Again, I'm not making these judgements--that is, it requires absolute, definitive proof. But the claim that 20 people accusing Bill Cosby of the same thing means that reasonable doubt has been beaten is fallacious. It relies on the premise that the veracity of an argument depends on the number of people who hold it to be true (ad numerum fallacy.) So if the argument is, "Bill Cosby has raped these women," the mere number of these women doesn't grant authority--especially since these women are attesting to their own individual accounts. Bill Cosby may have in fact raped just one of them--three of them--or none. Reasonable doubt is about meeting a reasonable standard of evidence.

The number of women absolutely, unequivocally, unquestionably, informs our beliefs and our doubts. Witness accounts are evidence, more witness accounts are more evidence. When you interject the ad numerum fallacy into this you're shifting standards, talking about premises to an argument, as if people are making an argument against Cosby and claiming the ratification of this argument by 20 women makes it correct. They're not. They're saying the witness accounts of 20 women constitutes considerable evidence on which they base their belief.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

The number of women absolutely, unequivocally, unquestionably, informs our beliefs and our doubts. Witness accounts are evidence, more witness accounts are more evidence. When you interject the ad numerum fallacy into this you're shifting standards, talking about premises to an argument, as if people are making an argument against Cosby and claiming the ratification of this argument by 20 women makes it correct. They're not. They're saying the witness accounts of 20 women constitutes considerable evidence on which they base their belief.

You'd have to be so intentionally, and resolutely obtuse to deny this last bit that it defies reason. Nothing here demands "absolute, definitive proof". Cosby is not on trial.

[Kalbear]

These posts by athias are the best example of the fallacy fallacy I've ever seen.

Athias, you are hitting a new high in using logic entirely the wrong way.

[karaddin]

Well he didn't. He became a complete mess and most of the money he was earning was for other people.

I'm not saying he didn't deserve to have trouble for it, although some of the shit he's had in his life (before and after) I wouldn't wish on anyone, but Karradin implied that he skated off consequence-free after the jail, and that just never happened.

Compare to Floyd Mayweather- he's never been accused of rape, as far as I've heard, but he is a repeatedly convicted batterer of women and that just gets brushed under the carpet; I'd be unsurprised if most casual fans aren't even aware of that fact.

I didn't say consequence free, nor did I say there was no impact on his life. His career was not destroyed, he continues to appear as the comic relief boxer and he is not shunned as he should have been.

Read the comment in context ffs, the point was that you can come back from even conviction - a rape accusation doesn't just mean life over, might as well kill yourself.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

I didn't say consequence free, nor did I say there was no impact on his life. His career was not destroyed, he continues to appear as the comic relief boxer and he is not shunned as he should have been.

Read the comment in context ffs, the point was that you can come back from even conviction - a rape accusation doesn't just mean life over, might as well kill yourself.

I think it's safe to say that in the States we more or less believe in second chances. Tyson paid his debt to society. On top of that, he's a bit of a sympathetic figure despite the rape charge and seeming mental instability. He was absolutely used and thrown away by his management on more than one occasion. His story really is kind of remarkable, and he's shown the ability to reflect on his past poor behavior, and even laugh at himself to some degree.

[TrueMetis]

You're indulging an ad numerum fallacy--especially since it's 20 individual accounts. The number may affect your impressions, but it doesn't beat reasonable doubt.

No I'm not, the fallacy would be saying "most people in this thread believe Cobsy is guilty therefore he is guilty." This is actual witnesses, therefore every witness saying the same thing is absolutely evidence and goes far beyond reasonable doubt, because let's be clear actual courts have convicted on far less evidence. Admittedly the reverse is true and people have gotten off on far more evidence too because the court system is all over the place on this matter.

[James Arryn]

I would say the greater logical inconsistency demonstrated in this thread is the complete lack of faith in the legal system determining the truth when it comes to people not convicted, but a seemingly absolute faith that a conviction reflects truth.

If you don't trust the system, don't trust the system.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

What evidence is there? I am asking this honestly. Did Mia Farrow have a history of coaching her children to make false accusations? Woody Allen obviously had a history of being sexually attracted to his step daughters, so I am wondering what good piece of evidence would make you believe that Mia Farrow would traumatize her daughter by coaching her into believing she was sexually assaulted.

The best article I've come across on the Allen sexual abuse allegations is this one. The article was discussed at length in an Entertainment thread on the the sexual abuse allegations against Allen.

My initial thoughts on the article are here and the post where I lay out all of the factual contentions that would, if true, tend to disprove Farrow's allegations that Allen sexually abuse their daughter are here.

Probably the most significant is that the Connecticut police investigative team (which included a psychologist) that investigated the allegations concluded that Dylan was not molested, and that they believed Dylan was probably coached by Farrow.

[karaddin]

I think it's safe to say that in the States we more or less believe in second chances. Tyson paid his debt to society. On top of that, he's a bit of a sympathetic figure despite the rape charge and seeming mental instability. He was absolutely used and thrown away by his management on more than one occasion. His story really is kind of remarkable, and he's shown the ability to reflect on his past poor behavior, and even laugh at himself to some degree.

Read my second paragraph, none of this alters my point. I'd also question your claim that the US is about second chances, although that certainly seems true of celebrities. I'm just unconvinced it applies to your average person.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Read my second paragraph, none of this alters my point. I'd also question your claim that the US is about second chances, although that certainly seems true of celebrities. I'm just unconvinced it applies to your average person.

Well yeah, it's considerably easier for a celeb to bounce back from a criminal conviction. And I think Tyson is probably even a more singular example. He's a rags to riches to rags sort of story that Americans tend to eat up like Thanksgiving dinner.

[James Arryn]

Well yeah, it's considerably easier for a celeb to bounce back from a criminal conviction. And I think Tyson is probably even a more singular example. He's a rags to riches to rags sort of story that Americans tend to eat up like Thanksgiving dinner.

In law class we looked back on the available evidence presented in his case and the Kennedy case of the same era, and the general consensus was that there was if anything more evidence supporting Kennedy's guilt, but that the one was convicted and the other not mostly because Tyson was seen as 'the kind of person who would rape' (as opposed to it being established he had done so) whereas Kennedy was not seen as that 'kind of person'. I also believe public issue polls of the time reflected the exact same distinction.

So the rags vs. riches part might work for you afterwards, but probably not at the time.

[Summah]

I would say the greater logical inconsistency demonstrated in this thread is the complete lack of faith in the legal system determining the truth when it comes to people not convicted, but a seemingly absolute faith that a conviction reflects truth.

If you don't trust the system, don't trust the system.

The system is set up to allow more guilty people to walk free than innocent people to go to jail. That said I absolutely believe innocent people are convicted; especially black people, poor people, people with intellectual disabilities or mental health problems and so on. There have been a number of people on death row who have been exonerated by DNA evidence. But I think anyone who has read my posts in the police threads or Mike Brown threads knows I don't trust the system.

On the issue of number of people who have come forward, I think it absolutely shows that Cosby is most likely guilty. Compare the 20 to 3 who accused Michael Jackson of molestation, and with MJ there is and was much more money and fame to be gained by an accusation like this than with Cosby.

[Seli]

...

Again, I'm not making these judgements--that is, it requires absolute, definitive proof. But the claim that 20 people accusing Bill Cosby of the same thing means that reasonable doubt has been beaten is fallacious. It relies on the premise that the veracity of an argument depends on the number of people who hold it to be true (ad numerum fallacy.) So if the argument is, "Bill Cosby has raped these women," the mere number of these women doesn't grant authority--especially since these women are attesting to their own individual accounts. Bill Cosby may have in fact raped just one of them--three of them--or none. Reasonable doubt is about meeting a reasonable standard of evidence.

That isn't an argument anyone makes. The likelyhood that Cosby is a rapist is not dependent on the number of people that think so, which would be a fallacy. The argument is that the likelihood any individual accusation of rape being false is low, and 20 independent claims lower the odds of Cosby not being a rapist even more. Which is a statistically and logically sound argument.

[James Arryn]

The system is set up to allow more guilty people to walk free than innocent people to go to jail.

What is your basis for this assertion?

That said I absolutely believe innocent people are convicted; especially black people, poor people, people with intellectual disabilities or mental health problems and so on.

Sure, those are absolutely factors. But studies show that the vast majority of people will plead out for crimes they did not commit if they believe it probable that they'll be convicted (which it is) and the alternative punishment is much worse than the deal offered. Contrary to cop show rhetoric, most people 'in' the system feel the balance of power rests pretty handily with the prosecution/police, unless you are wealthy/popular enough to tip that balance in the other direction.

One of the factors that emerges clearly from the D.N.A. retrospectives is that while it may be rare for the police to manipulate evidence to support a conviction against someone they believe to be innocent, a great many of them have no problem at all with doing so if they think the accused is probably guilty.

There have been a number of people on death row who have been exonerated by DNA evidence.

Yes, and you have to consider the factors which make those occurrences to be iceberg tips. First, the plea out probability I mentioned earlier. Second, the way probation hearings work, where a guilty man faces an infinitely easier road to release than an innocent person. If you had spent 10 years in the hell-hole that is federal prison, will you choose another 10 to argue your innocence when few are even listening, or would you nod to it and breathe free air?

But I think anyone who has read my posts in the police threads or Mike Brown threads knows I don't trust the system.

On the issue of number of people who have come forward, I think it absolutely shows that Cosby is most likely guilty. Compare the 20 to 3 who accused Michael Jackson of molestation, and with MJ there is and was much more money and fame to be gained by an accusation like this than with Cosby.

I agree the numbers persuade me some in terms of opinion, though there ARE dangers to that kind of thinking. But legally, people are grossly misrepresenting this aspect. It's not 'eyewitness testimony' unless they saw him committing the specific act in question. 'Past accusations of similar behaviour' is not really legally admissible, nor in fairness ought it to be. Among the many issues, those accusations may well fail to reveal specific legitimate reasons the case never came to trial.

But I have much less of an issue with that reasoning than with using (somewhat arbitrary) generalizations like how often false vs. real accusations are made as an argument for the guilt/innocence of an individual. That's seriously problematic reasoning imo.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

In law class we looked back on the available evidence presented in his case and the Kennedy case of the same era, and the general consensus was that there was if anything more evidence supporting Kennedy's guilt, but that the one was convicted and the other not mostly because Tyson was seen as 'the kind of person who would rape' (as opposed to it being established he had done so) whereas Kennedy was not seen as that 'kind of person'. I also believe public issue polls of the time reflected the exact same distinction.

So the rags vs. riches part might work for you afterwards, but probably not at the time.

The rape conviction would be the second "to rags" in the equation. He was a poor kid, who was an orphan at age 16. He had been arrested numerous times as a youth, and dropped out of school by his junior year. He then made good on his boxing ability as a young adult up until he was convicted of rape.

[James Arryn]

The rape conviction would be the second "to rags" in the equation. He was a poor kid, who was an orphan at age 16. He had been arrested numerous times as a youth, and dropped out of school by his junior year. He then made good on his boxing ability as a young adult up until he was convicted of rape.

Right. Not sure if/why you think we're saying different things.