1. Here’s a seemingly-rational-but-actually-isn’t position on Kavanaugh/Ford: “I don’t know what happened and you don't know what happened. I’m 50/50 and anyone who deviates from strict agnosticism is clearly biased.”
2. We should instead think like good Bayesians: How would we expect the world to be if Ford were telling the truth? How would we expect it to be if she were lying? We should then look at the world and weight our probabilities accordingly.
3. From what I can see, Ford has behaved (more or less) exactly the way I’d expect an honest, non-opportunistic victim to behave. Kavanaugh has behaved (more or less) like I’d expect a guilty person to behave.
4. For instance, Ford’s attempt to do this all quietly before Kavanaugh even became a nominee. And Kavanaugh’s irrelevant and hyper-defensive claim that he was a virgin until late into college.
5. Moreover, Ford's memory is about what I would expect it to be. I'm only 22 and I remember shocking things that happened at parties but I've have already forgotten boring details like how I got there, whose house it was, etc.
6. These things should lead a rational person to change their probabilities from 50-50, and to weight them in favor of Ford’s account.
7. Of course, we should not make our probability 100-0 in favor of Ford. And I’m open to being persuaded that I’m not considering relevant pieces of evidence that should lead me to change my probabilities in either direction.
8. My point is only that strict agnosticism, 50/50, "even-handed" thinking seems rational but is actually not––and is not the way we ought to reason in conditions of uncertainty in general.
9. Clarification: When I said Kavanaugh behaved in a way I'd expect a guilty person to behave, I was thinking of his irrelevant claim that he was a virgin until late into college, and his (probably) dishonest characterization of himself as not much of a party guy.
10. The first claim is irrelevant b/c, at the time he made it, he was accused of things that had nothing to do with penetration or intercourse. The second claim is probably dishonest b/c of how many people close to him at the time have confirmed that he was a heavy drinker.
11. One might expect an innocent person not to reach for irrational or dishonest defenses. This does NOT lead me claim that K is guilty. It only leads me to change my probabilities slightly in that direction. I never said K "looked guilty" & "I'm not relying on my"spidy sense"
12. That said, perhaps a person falsely accused of a crime IS very likely to reach for irrational and/or dishonest defenses. I'm open to that possibility.
Mistake in #10 here: Kavanaugh saying he was a virgin was in response to the charge of participating in gang rape––so it was an understandable attempted defense on his part.
Still, a man could participate in a gang rape (holding her down, non-penetration acts) while still technically being a virgin. So strictly speaking, his being a virgin was irrelevant to most if not all of the accusations against him. It depends on how you interpret "participate"
And finally, @toadmeister makes a good point that it's an open question what level of certainty is required in this scenario. We don't convict serious crimes on 51-49, for instance. The level of certainty appropriate to act upon is an interesting and separate conversation.
