CharonY

Another good man's future destroyed by uhm... old men?

I think it is worthwhile to repeat that this hearing is equivalent to a job interview. It is not about fact-finding, it is there to ascertain the suitability of Kavanaugh as a supreme court justice. FBI background investigations into the person are routine and are not part of a criminal investigation and as such not comparable to the collusion probe. The latter, btw. taking that long because, you know, a couple of criminal cases actually popped up. Here there is little chance of conviction and as such a background check would be pretty much the only thing one could do. And those tend to be fairly short. Also, even in the absence of any deeper probing, the way he deals with accusations is in my mind extremely important. Again, it is a job interview. It tells us more about his character and his possible performance as judge in the highest court of the country. The fact that he had trouble to own up to his minor misdemeanors (such as drinking too much) and only admitted it but still waffled, does not make me confident that he would judge others fairly. If someone references a lot MJ in their facebook post and waffles when questioned about marijuana use it is a red flag for hiring. After watching the hearings, it also does not seem like a guy who functions under pressure and he does have an enormous sense of entitlement (but is clearly not interested to agree into a deeper probe to exonerate himself). That all being said, it is quite likely that we will be confirmed regardless. It most likely will be the mirror of what happened with Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas. Ultimately, these accusations have demonstrated to hold relatively little power and if Blasey Ford did not come in as prepared as she was, she would have been taken apart. As such the committee had trouble to find obvious contradictions (at least compared to Kavanaugh).

Note that if you manage to get a title, you do not get to do whatever you want. If you do not work for someone else, you would need to get funding to do research. A title in itself is only a certificate that allows you to apply for certain positions.

Women. With obvious agendas reaching back at least six years. Rather masterful planning, I must say. Possibly because actual numbers indicate how rare these false accusations are. Perpetuating the myth that it is commonplace does not make it true.

Well as I said, the timeline are fuzzy enough not to be certain whether she attended the same parties post-rape. One statement indicates that it may have been the case (where she indicates 83 as the latest date) in another line she indicated 82, which could coincide with her alleged rape. Unless there are additional statements I am not clear whether she continued to attend or not. This could be part of further inquiry. I would agree that the timeline itself is not very clear and her overall statement seems to be less solid than Blasey Ford's statement. On the other hand, she was willing to submit an affidavit of her account. Edit: While it may not apply in this case, it should also be noted that there are reasons why rape victims at least initially downplay rape accounts and there are cases where there is continued social contact with perpetrators. This is more likely in non-violent cases, especially involving drugs or alcohol. Nowadays non-consensual sex while inebriated would be more likely considered rape, whereas a few decades ago it would not been seen as such or at least the victim would take a significant part of the blame (i.e. they should not have been drunk in the first place). Not saying that it is what is happening here, but especially in fraternities, party scenes and similar context acquitance rape is shockingly common and only fairly recently perceived as a real problem. Of course there are also potential issues with mistaken identities and so on. However, Kavanaugh managed to paint himself in the corner with regards to these allegations. However, now that Kavanaugh also testified under oath, there is a decent chance that someone has conducted perjury.

Me too (well, Swetnick). I glimpsed through her affidavit and she mentioned that 81-82 she became aware of Kavanaugh's and Judge's efforts to get girls drunk. She alleged her rape happened in 82. That being said, I looked through it once more and noticed that in an earlier line she noted that she attended house parties up to 83. The affidavit is a bit vague on overall timelines though. It should be noted that Swetnick's accusations are on quite a different level than the other ones.

The statistics are over all accusers, at least I am not aware of any study using reputation as a criterion. According to the affidavit I cannot find anything that would indicate her attending those parties after her alleged rape. That would a second aspect. However false accusations (which are not the same as non-proven ones, btw.). From what I understand those charges would typically include false reporting and interfering with police work (or something to that extent). However, in this case it is important to note that there is a sworn affidavit. This would add perjury and possible obstruction of justice. Well, as the current laws are, there are huge barriers for reporting, including the fact that at point of reporting certain demographics (especially young women or women with lower social standing) are often pressured or simply not believed by law enforcement. As mentioned earlier, even among those that decide to report, there is a huge attrition rate. Coupled with extremely low likelihood to actual achieve conviction, as well as attached social stigma, many consider it their best option not to pursue the case. And this is pretty much where the current "compromise" is and why often women only come forward when they realize that others were victims to the same perpetrator.

Well the way Kavanaugh presented himself makes it difficult not to take position. If he had for example said that he had a wild life as youth and may not have always been appropriate but being young bla bla bla, he could have muddied the waters. Stating that he was always respectful, never drank underaged etc. whilst providing evidence himself that puts it into question, raises question about his character. And just to make it clear, it is not about whether there was sexual assault per se. After all, it is not a trial and statute of limitation has expired. This is about the character of the person and he made it quite unambiguously clear that the women are mistaken. Regardless of political maneuvering (after all that is what whole process clearly is) he does not present himself in a trustworthy light. There is of course the possibility that the women have long-term resent against him. But then the question is why, if according to Kavanaugh they really never interacted in an adversarial manner.

It is somewhat lucky, if you want to call it that way, that this happened in a rather prestigious environment. As such the victims are also from social circles and educational levels that make it much harder to dismiss than as it often (unjustifiably) the case. Kavanaugh's defense in describing himself as a choir boy is going to backfire now.

Christine Blasey Ford's attorneys provided four affidavits from persons knowing her that she has consistently identified Kavanaugh as her assaulter since 2012. That at least puts a dent in the assumption that she only made the whole story up specifically to torpedo Kavanaugh's nomination.

It does not matter in that case as, from what I understand, the evidence derived from that data is not based on the assumption that the original authors had direct interaction with Jesus, for example (in which case it would be crucial to know how they were). Rather because there are multiple fragmentary evidences pointing to the same person. Of course, actually knowing the authors would help the case, but not knowing them has no bearing on the aforementioned fact. Again, the main element is the relationship between the provided sources. There are many cases in which historicity of figures are assumed by association with other sources. Gilgamesh is an example, due to the mentioning in context with evidence Emmebaragesi, which corroborate the possibility of the existence of Gilgamesh as a real person. As such, that mention was sufficient to tip the scale from mythical to possibly real. Which is considerable as Gilgamesh cannot be considered a minor figure. So folks who are considered to be researchers on the topic of the historic Jesus are working on a non-discipline. Hope the tenure board considered that. That is why you ask historians. You and I are not, so that is why I asked one. At the very least Eise provided some evidence (even if only from wikipedia) on the consensus on the Mythical Jesus. You provided nothing equivalent. Again, it does not matter what you and I think on it, we are not trained. Why the heck did you repeatedly criticized Eise for not providing (for you) sufficient evidence of a consensus. It is quite annoying that you demand more information, which I provide as it marginally piqued my interest and then to dismiss it out of hand. Why waste everyone's time? Yes indeed. And if it was disputed in historic circles there would be substantial discussion about it. Meanwhile specialists (i.e. working historians) provide various accounts on the view of a historic Jesus and most other historians state that is probably the current view of the field. That is what is called consensus. It is merely the most accurate representation of experts on a given field. It does not matter whether field consists of a dozen or a thousand folks. That is just how science works. If one side of the argument is presented by professionals and another side by bloggers I know how I would weigh the sources. And given the roundabout dismissal, I think that the discussion has run its course, at least for me.

And as I said, this is a special case. I can name dozens of topics in my area where a consensus has formed regarding specific mechanisms but only involved perhaps a few dozen active researchers at most. And this is experimental work. Trying to apply that standard universally and especially in history does not work. Not sure why it would matter. What historians read from those is that they are (based on source analysis) independent accounts (i.e. not just copies of each other) which allows them to identify cohesive as well as differing aspects of events.

Rather obviously in no discipline you will have a poll among scientists on a particular subject. Climate change is probably one of the few exception as it became a highly politicized subject. However, I asked folks about some well-respected historians (alive or relatively recently deceased) on the subject and names include: Geze Vermes, Paula Fredriksen, Marcus Borg, John Crossan and to some degree Burton Mack. Meanwhile, proponents of the Christian Myth theory highlighted in this thread seem to include on person who actually had training as a historian but no academic appointment. I thought they were mentioned earlier, but from as a summary (and based on a cursory reading): Mark, Matthew, Luke and John. While Matthew and Luke are using part of Mark, they also include independent (but unknown) source materials not found in Mark. This is referred to as the "Q" theory, which assumes that there is at least a fifth, lost source. These canonical gospels originated a few decades after Jesus deaths and draw from mostly independent accounts. There seem to be also later sources up to ca. 120 AD, but I frankly do not have the time or inclination to invest any more time on this matter. As a general note (not to you Ten Ox) and to restate what Eise said to another post: historians are not idiots. They do not take their sources literally but interpret it in comparison with other sources. Historians do not take the supernatural parts as real, but contextualize them in the framework of existing beliefs to understand why they wrote something. Specifically the Nazareth example is one of those case where historians perk up as it appears that the different authors twist their own sources but agree on a specific event makes the latter more likely. There a lot of those cues used by historians, including e.g. the criterion of embarrassment. I.e. if an author recounts an event that is a source of embarrassment for them, it is more likely not invented. There many more of those elements in a historian's work and it is silly to assume that they would use their source as written. As usual, context matters and more so for history.

That has to be qualified and I will note that while I am not a historian myself, my discussion with actual historians (though admittedly most with expertise in the middle ages rather than antique) are closer to what Eise described rather than the methodology that you propose. Especially for non high-level figures with extensive records, often references via secondary sources are used. What the historians look at is the sum of evidence to weigh whether it is sufficient to ascertain the existence of such a person. Referencing the same person in similar regional context, even after death, increases the likelihood of their existence for example. The main point being that historians also weigh the likelihood of records (contemporary or not) existing in the first place to ascertain historic presence. I.e. a king with few supporting records is less likely than a minor noble or peasant with the same quality of records. But as Eise said, it is typically a judgement call to a certain degree. Lets talk Socrates, for example. Evidence from his existence are exclusively secondary sources, say, the play "The Clouds" by Aristophanes, which references Socrates as a character. Perhaps more importantly, Plato and Xenophon have writings about Socrates. However, the writings originated after the death of Socrates (unless I get the timing wrong) and AFAIK all surviving writings are only conserved as copies made way later. So what is the evidence that Socrates existed in the first place rather as there are no surviving contemporary artifacts or even writings originating from Socrates? Essentially we are down to the fact that people who had surviving writings (even if only as copies) referenced the person and who had lived around the same time. Subsequent writers take his existence for granted which leaves little doubt that Socrates as person existed. The historicity around him is far less certain, though (which is known as the socratic problem). So to summarize, the existence of Socrates is pretty much taken for granted. They are based on secondary accounts. However, those accounts are by folks who reasonably could have interacted with him (though there is no archaeological or artifactial evidence) as well as records that were produced way later indicating that at least around that time there is no evidence that would invalidate the existence of such a person. So here we have a character where historians are pretty sure to have existed. Now, regarding the historicity of Jesus, it is pretty telling that criticisms are only from the fringe. Of course you could speculate that it is because all mainstream historians involved are religious to some degree and therefore biases. It is strange that among the critics they did not work on the topic during their main research phase, though. Evidence for the existence of Jesus include records of Christian cults a few decades after Jesus' death, indicating that at least someone founded these goups. Tacitus is often cited as providing evidence that these groups existed during lifetime of Jesus and referred to Pontius Pilate. Josephus' records, is another source for the existence of Jesus, though historians also assume that it is heavily altered from the original text. Nonetheless at least the reference to early Christians and Jesus are considered to be authentic. Both texts originated significantly after the death of Jesus, but source analysis by historians deem them to be significant enough to corroborate roughly the time Christianity originated and favours in positively to the existence of a figurehead. The important thing to remember is that while they are not as accurate as contemporary accounts, secondary sources still have access to records that are lost to us now. The way you describe it, seems that historians mainly consider contemporary records, which is not the case at all. Ehrman meanwhile made a very good point that there are roughly half a dozen independent accounts referring to Jesus (some only a few decades after his death). Effectively there is huge body of evidence indicating that Christianity originated roughly around the time in line in which Jesus would have lived. Further, there are several references to Jesus as the originator of this group, but no real alternative founders have been put forward. Based on my limited knowledge I would think that these and probably further reasons historians favour the existence of Jesus as a person (or at least someone who was named thus). If we take Socrates with 99% certainty, then 80% does not seem too far off. But certainly it is above 50%. Not that these numbers would make any sense. Note that the details of Jesus biography are up for debate, but the evidence is clearly weighed against the person being purely a myth. As such I think Eise's assessment of the consensus among historians is pretty much on point.

It would depend on the circumstances, I believe. In emergency situations and when the patient is unable to give consent, the usual requirement for informed consent to procedures can be waived. There have been court cases and if it can be demonstrated that the procedure was indeed a medical necessity and there was no way to obtain consent without harming the patient (e.g. patient is unconsciousness and there is a time limit), the physicians can go ahead and charge accordingly. More interesting are cases were patients could be deemed medically incompetent, and this cannot provide an informed decision. Individually these could be contested. E.g. a very drunk person could need an emergency procedure, declines it, but still gets it to save their life. After sobering up and suing the hospital the courts held that heavy intoxication could be considered a case of medical incompetence. The patient had to pay. In non-emergency cases they would not be able to perform the procedure without the informed of the patient or legal guardian, even if it was in their best interest.

Especially in the olden days a bigger issue is that women who got assaulted and raped are considered to be damaged goods. For male victims, the stigma is even worse. There is a huge body of research explaining why victims of sexual abuse rarely come forward and we have rehashed those reason in many threads already. I think there is more to that. Most folks do not think that they would assault anyone. From that perspective it is probably far easier to believe that one might get eventually wrongfully accused at a far higher rate. As a reminder, I would like to use data from the UK (Home Office Research Study 293) using rape statistics. These are rare events so the overall numbers are low. The total number of cases was 2284 and of these only 8% resulted in convictions. Meanwhile there were 216 cases which were deemed to be false convictions (12%). However, from these actually only 39 (1.7%) had cases were a person was named (i.e. accused). While one could argue that the assault numbers could face higher false accusations, they are still incredibly low and it is well accepted that in rape cases the situation favors heavily against the victim and it is one of the many factors why relatively few incidences are reported to begin with. Regarding the question why the accusations only come now. Well this is is part of a hearing of a public office. This is precisely the time when those allegations become unearthed. An important thing specifically with regard to Kavanaugh is the two-fold defense that is being made here. A) it probably did not happen (i.e. it is a false allegation) and B) even if it did, it was long ago and he should not be held accountable. Note that Kavanaugh himself rid himself of B) as a plausible defense as he categorically denied that it ever happened. Which means two possibilities. One, it is indeed a false allegation (and knowing the backlash Blasey Ford had a lie detector test and calls for an investigation before a hearing) or two, it did happen but he denies accountability. These will have no legal repercussions on Kavanaugh nor even his nomination per se. It does show his character though, which, again is part of the hearing process.

So you are saying that all folks (except, strangely the one Eise cited) are untrustworthy and therefore we can only rely on those that are not considered main stream? That is a baffling approach, using the same line of argument we really should lay off vaccines. But I have to ask, which are the mainstream historians, not theologists, who assert the points you just made (i.e. historicity of virgin birth and resurrection).

To be honest, I only ever used proper tradizionale once for marinating (as an experiment) because it is just so darn expensive. Even just as a final glaze it is costly (but delicious). That being said, some younger versions (say 7-8 years aged) are more affordable and I experimented with lamb a bit. Realistically though the marinating time will depend on the exposed surface. Lamb chops, for example do not seem to benefit from more than 2h (but even longer won't hurt), larger cuts need closer to 6 hours before I did not notice any differences. I am not sure what you mean with temperature. If you refer to marinating, all should be done at temperatures inhibiting bacterial growth, so realistically it will be in the fridge.

I guess it is a matter of preference, but generally I find the amount of sugar overwhelming (the acidity and fruity part is fine, though I would go easy on cows for that, but as usual, that is just a matter of preference). But I do think that proper aceto balsamico (esp. tradizionale) is already fairly high in sugars, not to mention smooth in its acidic balance and just syrupy enough to create the perfect glaze (ca. 0.5-0.7 Pa s to be precise).

I was agreeing up to the point of marmalade. I believe that aceto balsamico would take care of the sweet/sour aspect sufficiently.

I am not a scholar on this subject and therefore am not able properly evaluate the subject myself. However, I do seem to read Eise's posts differently than you do. My interpretation is that a) on balance mainstream historians evaluate existing information in favour of a person like Jesus Christ having existed and b) that the Christ myth theory is generally held by a fringe. I may have missed the point where Eise claimed that historians know Jesus to be real (which would be a somewhat odd claim for researchers of the antiquity to begin with), but from the latter posts this is what I am getting. Both claims seem to be accurate and what I feel is that you add your own evaluation to the mix, which is not the equivalent of historic standards (which Eise also already pointed out). It is not unusual to use secondary sources as well as indirect evidence to assume the existence of certain persons. In addition, a cursory view of proponents supportive of the myth theory shows roughly three elements: members of secularist groups, non-academics and academics in their emeritus phase. While this does not in itself invalidate their reasoning it does seem to be rather typical for fringe views. It also does not mean that it will never become mainstream, but neither does it seem to be supported by historians working in that field. And especially the relatively high amount of emeriti publishing in that area indicates that they are not in their field to begin with.

As far as I can see he is not attached to any academic institution and as far as I am aware his ideas are not particularly well received by mainstream historians. BTW, if the academic of a person is mainly substantiated by videos, then it is usually not very substantial. And while we are on the subject of lying: If you read the whole sentence and notice the italicized part, Eise noted that Carrier does not teach or conduct research at an university, which is clearly correct. Now, I will not say that I accuse you of lying (after all, it could be a matter of reading comprehension), but I assume you will see how that is a misleading way of quoting?

If I were to make a suggestion it would be to keep it closer to reality. The reason being that you can a) find better science rather than speculative sources and b) it shows the teacher that you have given it some thought, especially if you can provide some details. The downsides are that it will be a bit dryer and less fantastic. The balance depends a bit on in which class you are.

At the same time every cell single is actively making and breaking thousands of bonds, create and detoxify reactive species and directly interact with DNA itself. In that background, you would have to massively enrich isotopes to make a dent. That being said, classic experiments with 40K have already shown that in E.coli enrichment of these isotopes does not lead to any differences in physiological properties (compared to regular levels and with 40K removed). This is different from e.g. treatment with UV or any number of mutagenic substances (which we either ingest or produce during regular metabolism). Edit: also growing those cells for months and years is rather detrimental to your point. Do you know why? Because even without isotopic enrichment it will only take days (at most) for the bacteria to accumulate mutations. Again, due to biochemistry. So after a year, your population (assuming they still live) will be a hot mess of mutations regardless of isotopic composition of the medium.

That is clearly not how things work. You may get shunned if your goal is to disprove its existence by any means necessary. There are plenty of folks working on the intersection of e.g. ecological systems and global flows. And due to the increasing effects quite a few have to add it into their models. I.e. that claim is nonsense. Whenever I read such threads I almost feel obligated to go through Eise's post and upvote them as in essence he makes a very basic statement that should not be controversial but many science fans fail to grasp it. Different areas of study have different methodologies to gain insights. To use an example of what is often considered a "softer" natural science: In biology there are only limited area where we can do proper modeling (and even then they often they are extremely rough). The reason is that complexity and data quality are bigger issues than in e.g. physics. Especially a few decades ago this was a huge issue, yet it did not prevent us from making assumptions and create working model based on the data available. Of course the work of historians can not be based on experiments and requires critical examination of evidence. While lack of data and experimentation invites more freedom of interpretation, proper historians (i.e. not youtubers or bloggers) spend a lot of time sourcing their arguments. Dismissing it wholesale is just disrespectful and rather show a lack of understanding how historians work.