But that would be enough for a rational person to believe that the accusation is more likely true than not, because the large majority of such accusation are true. Granted, that > 50% criteria is not enough confidence to give a guilty verdict in a criminal case, but can and should be enough in other contexts, such as deciding whether to allow your daughter to date that person or deciding whether that person should have the immense privilege and power of sitting on SCOTUS for the next 30 years. In those contexts, they are not being denied any kind of basic right, just not being rewarded with a privilege few people have and power they could use to harm others. Thus, the > 50% is an appropriate criteria. In fact, you don't even need to "believe" they are a rapist to justify not granting them these privileges, rather a mere plausibility that they are is sufficient to make giving them this power an unnecessary risk, because there are plenty of people for whom there is no suggestion of it being plausible.
Greater than 50% is arbitrary. In some contexts it is too high and in other contexts it is too low.
It isn't "arbitrary", it is context-dependent, which is what I said. But anything lower than 50% cannot be called a "belief", by definition. A minimum criteria to say "I believe that X." is that you think X is more likely than not. Anything less means that you think "not X" is more likely.
That's also a bit of a tangent to the original op and is better suited to a different thread, already made. In that other thread, I discussed risk assessment but this thread is merely about belief which ought to be correlated in some way to probability.
It is highly relevant, because it highlights another reason why the OP asks a meaningless question that cannot be rationally answered without extensive qualifications and clarifications. Belief is not a dichotomous state and almost never is it rational to have certain belief. Which means that belief in a claim ranges from anywhere between thinking the claim has 50.00001% probability to 99.99999% probability. Our willingness to attach the word "belief" to a given level of probability varies by context.
In any case, risk is a convolution of severity of outcome and probability. So, for example, if you are doing thing X where the probability of the outcome is 10% chance of a zombie apocalypse, then that is not acceptable as an action. If there is a 30% chance your daughter's date is a rapist, it is still unacceptable to allow it to go forward. See
my post in the other thread.
True, which is why I said that it can be reasonable to act as though the claim is true, even if you do not actually believe it is true by the minimum criteria of 50% probability.
In regard to probability and belief strictly in the context of this thread without taking into account credibility, etc, see
my previous post in this thread. There is a relationship between N: the number of independent accusers, and the probability all are lying. Only one accuser has to be telling the truth for the accused to be "guilty" of something.
But that relationship between # of accusers and probability is non-linear and changes drastically depending upon context and accuser credibility.
How much an additional accuser increases the probability varies massively depending upon the situation and who the accusers are. Thus, it is meaningless to even ask it in a hypothetical situation that has no similarity to any real world event. Any rational answer would require estimating the increase in probability in all probable situations and then reporting some meaningless "average" which may be nowhere near the actual number in any actual situation (just like "50" is nowhere near the 0 and 100 of which it is an average). Besides, since such a level of processing is implausible, it is unlikely that anyone actually giving a numerical response to the OP poll is giving anything but an arbitrary or purely ideological, irrational answer.
With respect to Kavanaugh, Republicans were throwing mud everywhere and it certainly muddies the waters. It is hard to know what is true. So, for example, the two anonymous guys who independently said they were the ones who tried to rape Ford each on their own. Was that a Republican hoax?
Correct, and that just illustrates how meaningless it is to talk about any increase in probability due to the # of people making a claim. Suppose that 3 anonymous people say they saw who raped Ford at that party and it wasn't Kavanaugh. That wouldn't count for anything more than 1 person saying it, and in fact would count for less than if 1 person said is on the record and gave their name. How much an each accusation matters depends entirely upon context, who is making it, whether they go on the record, etc..
(1) this thread is not merely about Kavanaugh but instead to establish some ground rules about N
Well, the OP is a misguided effort to establish ground rules about N, but most of the post are about how utterly foolish it is to try to do so and how irrational and inapplicable to any real world situation any answer to the OP poll would be.
(2) there is already a trivial proof of Kavanaugh's unsuitability for SC justice. He clearly perjured himself and is so extremely partisan that it allows him to be prejudicial. Therefore, we do not need to make a final conclusion about Ford et alia, but instead we can conclude Kavanaigh is unacceptable as a justice. There are even some moderate Republicans who follow this line of reasoning.
I agree with this, but the last point of my prior post was that rational and decent people would vote against him for SCOTUS even without the perjury, partisanship, and lack of emotional control and professionalism he showed. Even if one thinks there is only a 20% chance he tried to rape Ford, that is sufficient basis to vote against him, because it is a risk assessment decision not just a decision of whether the rape claim should be believed.
