Doesn't it seem at all a problem that you appear to be using different standards of evidence here? You *believed* (and acted on) things about Phil based on what others told you; but you don't *know* about Krauss (despite at least equivalent evidence), so you withhold *belief*?
No, it wasn't. When people I trusted messaged me to warn me against talking to Phil because he did this, I took their warnings seriously because of my knowledge of them as honest people but I did not have evidence they were true and so did not claim to know this.
-
-
I saw it very soon afterwards in relation to three people. You are confusing believing things from credible people with knowing them to be true, claiming them to be true & expecting society to regard them as true.
-
One of my friends told me she had been raped. I believed her because I know her to be mentally well & honest. I saw the fallout of it for her emotionally. I supported her. I wanted the rapist dead. There wasn't sufficient evidence to prosecute & I fantasised abt killing him.
-
I understood on a visceral level then why some people get so passionate about always believing the victim. She did herself for a while. It remains necessary to require evidence & due process to claim something to be true, Because personal conviction of truth is not enough
-
100% agree. I've had a similar experience. But that's why I wouldn't say most claims against Krauss (or Phil, from my end) *are* true; they're just credible enough to deserve taking quite seriously.
-
Well, I don't know what to say to you then. He posted the email and admitted to having written it and to knowing that Peter did not want any contact with him. He defended doing so. I don't see any grounds for claiming this has not been established to be true.
-
No, that part is clear. I mean, I lack all the earlier, more detailed (perhaps even more damning) evidence that you've pointed to in support of your criticisms of him. Sorry for being unclear.
-
You're still being unclear and I think I am going to leave it here. I have not asked anyone to believe anything for which there is not evidence in the form of Phil's own posts and admissions.
-
No, you explicitly said not to believe - apologies if I implied otherwise. I was trying to make a different point (that you pointed to hidden evidence to support your public criticism). But fair enough, and I should go too. Thanks for the very interesting discussion.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Sure, and that's exactly how a reasonable person should react, far as I'm concerned. But again, it seems problematically limited. On that standard, you can't take seriously a mere acquaintance at a conference - perhaps a more dangerous situation.
-
Our knowledge is always limited, yes. We go through life making assessments based on our experience and evaluation of the trustworthiness of others.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.