I tend to try to tread lightly on competing claims unless I have some insight. For every assertion, it's show what you've got. Some are better sourced that others. I like how physicist Lawrence Krauss described "knowing" as a % of certainty. Flat earth - 100% certain is wrong.
Ironically, Krauss has been accused of harassment. My wild ass guess would be either side of 50-50, and knowing my input makes no difference to whatever reality exists.
Here's an interesting take on the Lawrence Krauss allegations by Sam Harris. I've really grown to admire Sam's approach to knowledge and weighing evidence as it were.
Assuming you support the idea that women shouldn't be sexually harassed, what kind of evidence do you need to take action.
Most of the time all we get in testimonies from the victims. If we require hard evidence then almost all these people will get away with it. So what would standards of evidence be?
Remember, we are not talking jail time, just not bring invited to events and not being put on a pedestal.
Not sure I have the definitive answer. Multiple accusers goes beyond he said/she said in most cases. Additionally, how egregious the act is comes into play.
I would say 75-25 guilty for Krauss right now.
Agreed. I'd really like to know he didn't do what he's accused of. Unfortunately, the likelihood is 50/50, just like you said.
And multiple accusers that appear credible pushes the needle against his favor, but by how much? At what % of certainty initiates sanctions of sort and at what level? Things such as declining booksales or speaker invites, versus loss of employment status are part of the discussion across the spectrum.