Biweekly Discussion - A Skeptic Take on the Kavanaugh Hearings

Name: Biweekly Discussion - A Skeptic Take on the Kavanaugh Hearings
Start: 2018-12-02T15:00:00-05:00
End: 2018-12-02T17:00:00-05:00
Location: Cafe Walnut

Hosted By

Brian B.

Biweekly Discussion - A Skeptic Take on the Kavanaugh Hearings

Details

We're currently hosting our discussions at Café Walnut, near the corner of 7th & Walnut in Olde City, just across the street from Washington Square Park. The cafe's entrance is below street level down some stairs, which can be confusing if it's your first time. Our group meets in the large room upstairs.

Since we're using the cafe's space, they ask that each person attending the meetup at least purchase a drink or snack. Please don't bring any food or drinks from outside. If you're hungry enough to eat a meal, they have more substantial fare such as salads, soups & sandwiches which are pretty good and their prices are reasonable.

The cafe is fairly easy to get to if you're using public transit. With SEPTA, take the Market-Frankford Line & get off at the 5th Street Station (corner of 5th & Market), and walk 2 blocks south on 5th and then turn right on Walnut Street and walk 2 blocks west. With PATCO, just get off at the 9th-10th & Locust stop and walk 3 blocks east & 1 block north. For those who are driving, parking in the neighborhood can be tough to find. If you can't find a spot on the street, I'd suggest parking in the Washington Square parking deck at 249 S 6th Street which is just a half block away.

----------------------------------------------
A SKEPTICAL TAKE ON THE KAVANAUGH HEARINGS

INTRODUCTION:

This meetup will address the confirmation hearings for Brett Kavanaugh from the standpoint of scientific skepticism and evidence-based reasoning. Originally, I planned to focus on some of the conspiracy theories that began swirling around the Supreme Court with the death of Justice Scalia and then work up to those involving the Kavanaugh hearings. However, I've decided to focus the bulk of this meetup more narrowly on Christine Blasey Ford's allegation that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her at a house party in the early 1980s. Assessing the veracity of the various claims made by Ford or Kavanaugh ties in well with the overall goals of the skeptic movement, because it forces us to apply scientific knowledge & critical thinking in a very controversial case where most people are tempted to give into their emotions & partisan biases.

So how does science come into play here? Well, in several ways - we'll look at the social science research on sexual assault, the science (and pseudoscience) behind lie detection, as well as the science of memory, and then we'll use this to develop "prior probabilities" for a Bayesian analysis of Ford's allegations against Kavanaugh. Two prominent members of the skeptic & atheist community, Sam Harris & Steven Pinker, endorsed a Bayesian calculator created by the cognitive science researcher Eric Saund to assess Kavanaugh's guilt based on several variables, and we'll use it in the final section.

However, before we get into that, I want to mention the conspiracy theories I initially planned on covering, give them a brief fact check, and then explain why I think it wouldn't be very fruitful to dive into them...

A BRIEF DETOUR INTO SIX RECENT CONSPIRACY THEORIES ABOUT THE SUPREME COURT, AND WHY WE'RE NOT GOING TO FOCUS ON THEM:

So what are the conspiracy theories I originally planned on covering? There's 6 total -- 3 right-wing conspiracy theories about plots by Democrats (#1, 3, 6) and 3 left-wing conspiracy theories about plots by Republicans (#2, 4, 5). Here they are in the order the emerged into public discussion, along with links to articles that debunk or at least cast lots of doubt on them:

Conspiracy Theories that Justice Antonin Scalia did not die naturally but was smothered in his sleep while on a hunting trip with a "secret society", the Order of St. Hubertus, and the plot was hinted at in the leaked Clinton emails
https://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/owner-ranch-scalia-died-clarifies-pillow-location-article-1.2535124
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/wikileaks-exposes-clinton-assassination-of-antonin-scalia/
Conspiracy Theories that Trump persuaded Justice Kennedy to retire before the midterms in return for protection for his son Justin from the Russia investigation
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/jul/10/blog-posting/did-justice-kennedy-quit-due-family-ties-trump-and/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/07/12/untangling-the-links-between-trump-deutsche-bank-and-justice-kennedys-son/
Conspiracy Theories about George Soros paying protestors to disrupt Kavanaugh's confirmation hearing, and possibly paying some of Kavanaugh's accusers or their lawyers to make false accusations
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/10/05/no-george-soros-isnt-paying-kavanaugh-protesters/
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ford-lawyer-soros-kavanaugh/
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/kavanaugh-accuser-soros-ties/
Conspiracy Theories about Zina Bash, Kavanaugh's aide, using an "OK" hand sign during the hearings to covertly signal "white power" to TV audiences
https://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/the_lsquosecret_hand_signsrsquo_conspiracy
https://www.vox.com/2018/9/5/17821946/white-power-hand-signal-brett-kavanaugh-confirmation-hearing-zina-bash-4chan
Conspiracy Theories about Brett Kavanaugh being part of a DC-area "gang rape ring" while in high school, which preyed on the daughters of wealthy families but was protected by the "code of silence" of elite prep schools
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/julie-swetnick-restraining-order/
https://www.nationalreview.com/g-file/the-moral-panic-phase/
https://reason.com/blog/2018/11/05/brett-kavanaugh-due-process-false-rape
Conspiracy Theories about the Clintons somehow covertly orchestrating the accusations against Kavanaugh, as revenge for his part in the Kenneth Starr investigation twenty years ago and for looking into Vince Foster's suicide - or perhaps Kavanaugh helped with the Vince Foster cover-up but he & the Clintons later fell out
https://apnews.com/50fc0c4a19574060a3d38a4525a573fc
https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/kavanaugh-accused-of-promoting-whacko-conspiracy-theories-about-hillary-clinton-vince-foster-affair/
https://www.mediaite.com/tv/fox-news-napolitano-ties-kavanaugh-to-wild-conspiracy-theory-about-vince-fosters-death/

While the partisan leanings of these conspiracy theories vary, they're similar in that they allege complex & nefarious orchestration of events by political elites in a way that defies Occam's Razor because there's much simpler & more mundane explanations. But since they don't violate scientific laws in the way that claims about the paranormal or pseudoscience do, we can't completely debunk them. So they're all possible but they're not probable, and many of the supporting arguments behind these conspiracy theory arguments are undermined by contradictory facts. The conspiracy theories can be modified to account for these contradictory facts, but this sort of "post-hoc theorizing" ends up moving them towards being unfalsifiable, like Bertrand Russell's celestial teapot.

Some of the conspiracy theories above are highly implausible because crime statistics suggest that our prior probabilities for crimes like political assassination & serial gang rape should be very low, and the lack of supporting evidence keeps the posterior probability low. Similarly, research on hate groups suggests a female attorney who immigrated from Mexico and whose Jewish grandparents were Holocaust survivors is highly unlikely to be a white supremacist. However, trying to evaluate conspiracy theories about the Trump administration coercing Kennedy into retiring or Democratic operatives bribing or convincing women to make false accusations against Kavanaugh is more difficult because it's hard to find enough research from sociologists & political scientists into how political elites normally operate on a day-to-day basis and how often they typically use coercion, bribery & false accusations. Major leaks of emails from political operatives like we've seen recently may allow researchers to gain more insight eventually, but based on how the "Pizzagate" conspiracy theory emerged from the leaked emails of John Podesta, it's likely that false pattern recognition would overwhelm more careful analysis in the short term. Without more research into the sociology of political strategizing & scandals, it's difficult to establish "base rates" for things like coercion & bribery that can function as "prior probabilities" in a Bayesian analysis.

Conversely, Ford's allegations against Kavanaugh are simpler & they can be broken down into several elements to which we can roughly assign prior probabilities. Sexual assault in both high school & college settings has received enough research in recent years that we can roughly establish the chances of an upper class male being a rapist and an upper class female making a false accusation. We also have enough research on lie detection that we can evaluate claims about the odds of a person beating a polygraph and/or appearing "credible" as they testify based on their tone & body language. And research into memory allows us to evaluate the chances that someone can accurately remember a traumatic event that occurred many years ago & while they were possibly intoxicated. As we'll see, the level of precision for all of these elements is not nearly as high as we'd like, but even if we can't precisely quantify the odds of Kavanaugh's guilt or innocence, a Bayesian analysis can at least help us get a better understanding of our implicit assumptions & the way partisan motivations sway them.

NOTE: Back in May, we had a relevant meetup on the "campus rape crisis" that looked at the overstated role of date rape drugs in cases of sexual assault on college campuses, and the debate over whether binge drinking, party location or underlying attitudes play the operative role in male sexual aggression. We also discussed allegations by conservative pundits that the liberal media is biased in its search for what the author Tom Wolfe called the "Great White Defendant" (i.e. privileged straight white males like the Duke Lacrosse players & UVA fraternity brothers) in college rape cases. The liberal counterargument is that the conservative media engages in slut-shaming & victim-blaming and is overeager to dismiss the campus rape crisis as a "moral panic" in order to protect white male privilege. You can review the discussion outline here:
https://www.meetup.com/Philly-Skeptics/events/248995893/

ALSO: Right before our meetup, the Philly Political Agnostics will be hosting a discussion on the alleged "legitimacy crisis" facing the Supreme Court. They'll cover the contentious Bush v Gore decision, the alleged partisan shift in SCOTUS rulings since 2000, the hardball tactics Republicans used to block Merrick Garland's appointment & end the filibuster of Neil Gorsuch, the effects of the Kanaugh controversies on Americans' opinions of the court, and the possibility of the court overturning major decision like Roe v. Wade
(abortion) & Obergefell v. Hodges (same-sex marriage). To check out the discussion outline and RSVP, go here:
https://www.meetup.com/Philadelphia-Political-Agnostics/events/dxmsjqyxqbdb/

-----------------------------------------------

DIRECTIONS ON HOW TO PREPARE FOR OUR DISCUSSION:

The videos & articles you see linked below are intended to give you a basic overview of some of the relevant factors in assessing Ford's allegations against Brett Kavanaugh. As usual, I certainly don't expect you to read all the articles & watch all the videos prior to attending our discussion. The easiest way to prepare for our discussion is to just watch the numbered videos linked under each section - the videos come to about about 48 minutes total. The articles marked with asterisks are just there to supply additional details. You can browse and look at whichever ones you want, but don't worry - we'll cover the stuff you missed in our discussion.

In terms of the discussion format, my general idea is that we'll address the topics in the order presented here. I figure we'll spend about 30 minutes on each section.

----------------------------------------------

I. STATISTICS ON TEENAGE DRINKING & SEXUAL ASSAULT & THE QUESTION OF "PRIOR PROBABILITY" IN SEXUAL ASSAULT CASES:

DOES RESEARCH SHOW THAT ONLY 2% OF RAPE ACCUSATIONS ARE FALSE, OR THAT 2-10% ARE PROVEN FALSE AND AN ADDITIONAL AMOUNT THAT DIDN'T LEAD TO CONVICTION ARE ALSO FALSE?
CAN WE ESTABLISH A PRIOR PROBABILITY OF FORD MAKING A FALSE (ATTEMPTED) RAPE ACCUSATION GIVEN THE STATISTICS ON FALSE ACCUSATION IN GENERAL?
HOW ACCURATE ARE DAVID LISAK'S STUDY THAT SHOWED 6% OF COLLEGE MEN ADMITTED TO "NON-CONSENSUAL SEX" & KEVIN SWARTOUT'S STUDY THAT SHOWED A HIGHER NUMBER 10.8%? CAN THIS GIVE US A PRIOR PROBABILTY OF A MAN BEING A RAPIST?
IS BINGE DRINKING & SEXUAL ASSAULT CORRELATED? IF SO, SHOULD KAVANAUGH'S DRINKING HABITS IN HIGH SCHOOL AFFECT OUR PROBABILITY OF HIM BEING LIKELY TO COMMIT SEXUAL ASSAULT? DOES KNOWING THAT ~75% OF HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS OF HIS GENERATION DRANK AFFECT THE ESTIMATE?
SHOULD KAVANAUGH'S SIX PRIOR FBI BACKGROUND CHECKS AND THE CHARACTER WITNESS LETTER FROM 65 FEMALE HIGH SCHOOL FRIENDS AFFECT OUR ESTIMATE?
DO MULTIPLE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST KAVANAUGH (FORD, RAMIREZ, SWETNICK) MAKE THE PROBABILITY OF HIS GUILT APPROACH 100%, OR COULD THIS BE THE "BANDWAGON EFFECT"?
COULD THE OPPOSITE CASE BE ARGUED, I.E. NOW THAT AT LEAST ONE ALLEGATION AGAINST KAVANAUGH (BY JUDY MUNRO-LEIGHTON) HAS PROVEN FALSE & ANOTHER IS HIGHLY SUSPICIOUS (JULIE SWETNICK), THAT THE CHANCES OF FORD & RAMIREZ'S ALLEGATIONS HIGHER?

1a) Inside Edition, "Inside the Booze-Soaked 1980s When Brett Kavanaugh Was in High School" (video - 2:57 min.)
https://youtu.be/b5cvCAzAc5Q

1b) Christina Hoff Sommers, "Sexual assault myths: Part 1" (video - 4:26 min.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZrzCAuiw7w

1c) Christina Hoff Sommers, "Sexual assault myths: Part 2" (video - 5:10 min.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dq3Ju_sI_Ew

Christopher Ingraham, "Analysis: The early 1980s were the peak of teen boozing"
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/article/The-early-1980s-were-the-peak-of-teen-boozing-13260201.php
Mary Koss & Alexandra Rutherford, "What Surveys Dating Back Decades Reveal About Date Rape"
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/09/what-surveys-dating-back-decades-reveal-about-date-rape/571330/
Sandra Newman, "I’ve studied false rape claims. The accusation against Kavanaugh doesn’t fit the profile - What I learned reading hundreds of false rape accusations."
https://www.vox.com/first-person/2018/9/18/17874504/kavanaugh-assault-allegation-christine-blasey-ford
David French, "The Flawed Statistic That’s Helping Poison the Brett Kavanaugh Debate"
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/09/brett-kavanaugh-accusations-rape-claim-statistics/
Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux, "What If Most Campus Rapes Aren't Committed By Serial Rapists?"
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-if-most-campus-rapes-arent-committed-by-serial-rapists/

II. THE (PSEUDO-)SCIENCE OF LIE DETECTION & HOW IT RELATES TO OUR PERCEPTIONS OF FORD & KAVANAUGH'S TESTIMONY:

KNOWING THAT THE SKEPTIC COMMUNITY CONSIDERS THE USE OF POLYGRAPHS FOR LIE DETECTION AS CLOSE TO PSEUDOSCIENCE, SHOULD WE DISREGARD FORD'S POLYGRAPH RESULTS?
DO FORD'S VOCAL FRY & KAVANAUGH'S ANGRY OUTBURSTS INDICATE GENUINE EMOTION OR AN ATTEMPT TO DECEIVE US WITH THEATRICS?
KNOWING THAT THE SKEPTIC COMMUNITY CONSIDERS THE USE OF BODY LANGUAGE ANALYSIS FOR LIE DETECTION AS CLOSE TO PSEUDOSCIENCE, SHOULD WE DISREGARD FORD & KAVANAUGH'S BODY LANGUAGE DURING TESTIMONY?
SHOULD WE APPLY THE COMMON LAW LEGAL PRINCIPLE OF "FALSUS IN UNO, FALSUS IN OMNIBUS" & DISREGARD ALL TESTIMONY FROM FORD OR KAVANAUGH IF IT'S PROBABLE THAT THEY LIED EVEN ONCE?
DID KAVANAUGH PROBABLY LIE ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT HE WAS A VIRGIN IN HIGH SCHOOL, WHETHER HE'D EVER BLACKED OUT FROM DRINKING, AND/OR THE MEANING OF VARIOUS COMMENTS IN HIS YEARBOOK LIKE "RENATE ALUMNIUS", "BOOFED" AND "DEVIL'S TRIANGLE"?
DID FORD PROBABLY LIE ABOUT WHY HER HOUSE HAS A 2ND FRONT DOOR, HER FEAR OF FLYING, AND/OR WHETHER SHE'D EVER COACHED SOMEONE ON HOW TO TAKE A POLYGRAPH? ARE THERE ELEMENTS OF HER STORY OF THE ASSAULT THAT DON'T SOUND PROBABLE?

2a) Fox News w/ Jeremiah Hanafin, "Retired [FBI] agent who gave Ford polygraph test shares insight" (video - 5:49 min.)
https://youtu.be/ijf_IWElXjk

2b) Kare 11 w/ Kevin Sauter, "Communications expert comments on Kavanaugh hearing" (video - 2:48 min.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehOo5LMQKRg

Steve Novella, "Lie Detection"
https://www.skepticblog.org/2011/10/31/lie-detection/
Karen Stollznow, "Body Language: (Don’t) Read My Lips"
https://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/13-06-26/
Alvin Chang, "Every time Ford and Kavanaugh dodged a question, in one chart. There was a striking difference in style — and substance."
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/9/28/17914308/kavanaugh-ford-question-dodge-hearing-chart
John Nolte, "Christine Blasey Ford Brought No Evidence but Plenty of Contradictions"
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2018/09/28/nolte-christine-blasey-ford-brought-no-evidence-but-plenty-of-contradictions/

III. THE SCIENCE OF MEMORY & HOW IT RELATES TO FORD & KAVANAUGH'S TESTIMONY:

CAN RESEARCH ON THE MEMORY OF WITNESSES IN CONTROLLED LAB SITUATIONS GIVE US ANY INSIGHT INTO WHETHER FORD MIGHT HAVE MISIDENTIFIED HER ATTACKERS? IS IT BETTER TO FOCUS ON RESEARCH ON THE MEMORY OF WITNESSES & VICTIMS OF ACTUAL CRIMES?
IF FORD DRANK MORE THAN THE ONE BEER SHE CLAIMED, HOW WOULD THIS AFFECT THE ODDS OF HER MISIDENTIFYING HER ATTACKER? COULD THIS BE COUNTER-ACTED BY THE SURGE OF ADRENALINE & NOREPINEPHRINE DURING THE ASSAULT?
HOW DOES THE PASSAGE OF OVER 30 YEARS AFFECT THE ABILITY OF FORD & KAVANAUGH TO CLEARLY RECALL WHAT HAPPENED?
COULD FORD BE EXPERIENCING "MOTIVATED REMEMBERING" BASED ON OPPOSITION TO KAVANAUGH'S CONSERVATISM? IS IT POSSIBLE THAT FORD COULD INTENTIONALLY CONVINCE HERSELF THAT KAVANAUGH ATTACKED HER USING HYPNOSIS OR SOME OTHER METHOD?
CONVERSELY, COULD KAVANAUGH BE EXPERIENCING "MOTIVATED FORGETTING" - I.E. THE ASSAULT ISN'T CONGRUENT WITH HIS VIRTUOUS SELF-IMAGE?
IS IT POSSIBLE THAT FORD COULD INTENTIONALLY CONVINCE HERSELF THAT KAVANAUGH ATTACKED HER USING RECOVERED MEMORY HYPNOSIS OR SOME OTHER METHOD WITH HER THERAPIST?
IF KAVANAUGH WAS "STUMBLING DRUNK" DURING THE ASSAULT AS FORD CLAIMED, WHAT IS THE PROBABILITY THAT HE WOULD HAVE NO LITTLE OR NO MEMORY OF THE EVENT?
IF KAVANAUGH HAD ADMITTED TO BLACKING OUT FROM DRINKING IN HIGH SCHOOL, WOULD IT BE APPROPRIATE TO DISMISS HIS CLAIM THAT HE KNEW HE NEVER ASSAULTED FORD?

3a) Vox, "Why Kavanaugh's accusers can't remember everything" (video - 7:18 min.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyLvAxs0MXU

3b) TomoNews US, "Kavanaugh: Here's the science behind the 'blackout theory'" (video - 2:41 min.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qURRisaOeEQ

Tyler Watkins, "On the Fallibility of Memory and the Importance of Evidence"
https://quillette.com/2018/10/04/on-the-fallibility-of-memory-and-the-importance-of-evidence/
Richard Knox, "Defining Blackout: Why Understanding Alcohol-Induced Amnesia Is Crucial Amid Kavanaugh Allegations"
http://www.wbur.org/commonhealth/2018/10/03/kavanaugh-ford-drinking-blackout
Stuart Taylor Jr., "Christine Blasey Ford and the Implanted Memory Theory"
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/10/05/christine_blasey_ford_and_the_implanted_memory_theory_138263.html
Avi Selk, "The junk science Republicans used to discredit Christine Blasey Ford’s memories"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2018/10/07/republicans-who-believed-ford-doubted-her-memory-relied-junk-science-researchers-say/

IV. A BAYESIAN ANALYSIS OF KAVANAUGH'S GUILT IN LIGHT OF FORD'S ALLEGATIONS & THEIR TESTIMONY:

SINCE IT'S HARD TO ESTABLISH RIGOROUS ESTIMATES OF THE PROBABILITIES TO PLUG INTO SAUND'S CALCULATOR, IS THIS JUST A CASE OF "GABAGE IN, GARBAGE OUT"?
DO THE PROSECUTOR'S FALLACY & DEFENSE ATTORNEY'S FALLACY RELATE TO THIS CASE, EVEN THOUGH THERE'S NO DNA TESTS? IF SO, HOW?
SAM HARRIS TWEETED A LINK TO SAUND'S CALCULATOR WITH THE COMMENT "0.91" PROBABLY INDICATING HIS CHOICES FOR THE SETTINGS YIELDED A 91% PROBABILITY THAT KAVANAUGH ASSAULTED FORD. BASED ON HIS PODCAST COMMENTS, WHAT ASSUMPTION DO YOU THINK HE MADE, AND WERE THEY REASONABLE?
ARE ANY OF THE QUESTIONS ASSOCIATED WITH FACTORS ON SAUND'S CALCULATOR AMBIGUOUS? IF SO, HOW COULD WE MAKE THEM MORE CONCRETE?
ARE THE OTHER FACTORS THAT SAUND SHOULD'VE INCLUDED ON HIS CALCULATOR? IF THEY WERE INCLUDED, HOW WOULD THEY AFFECT THE ESTIMATE?
WHERE SHOULD THE BURDEN OF PROOF BE IN A SENATE CONFIRMATION HEARING, AND HOW HIGH SHOULD THE PROBABILITY OF GUILT BE TO DISQUALIFY A CANDIDATE? SHOULD AN ACCUSATION WITH NO CORROBORATION FROM WITNESSES OR PHYSICAL EVIDENCE BE ENOUGH TO DISQUALIFY?

4a) Melissa Humphreys, "The Prosecutor's Fallacy" (video - 4:21 min.)
https://youtu.be/V4cMWoGxEwo

4b) Sam Harris, ""On Brett Kavanaugh" (podcast excerpt - 12:50 min.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Z6AoIyZJ68

Eric Saund, "Kavanaugh - Ford Senate Testimony
Bayes' Rule Calculator"
http://www.saund.org/kavanaugh-bayes/kavanaugh-ford-bayes-calculator.html
Eric Saund, "Did Kavanaugh Do It? Math Helps Us Decide."
https://medium.com/@saund/did-kavenaugh-do-it-9fb3e08bb2a3
Scott Alexander, "Kavanaugh: A Probability Poll"
http://slatestarcodex.com/2018/10/08/kavanaugh-a-probability-poll/
John Holbo, "What Are The Odds?"
http://crookedtimber.org/2018/09/26/odds-2/
Robin Hanson, "My Poll, Explained"
http://www.overcomingbias.com/2018/09/my-poll-explained.html
Coleman Hughes, "Why You Should Probably Believe Christine Blasey Ford"
https://afro-optimist.blogspot.com/2018/09/why-you-should-probably-believe-ford.html
Aaron Sibarium, "The Presumption of Credence: In the Kavanaugh controversy, both outcomes were guaranteed to enrage half the country—but only one avoided a system-smashing incentive structure."
https://www.the-american-interest.com/2018/10/10/the-presumption-of-credence/

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Events in Philadelphia, PA

Skeptics In The Pub - Philly

See more events

Skeptics In The Pub - Philly

Sunday, December 2, 2018
3:00 PM to 5:00 PM EST

Cafe Walnut

703 Walnut Street · Philadelphia, PA

Skeptics In The Pub - Philly

public group

Biweekly Discussion - A Skeptic Take on the Kavanaugh Hearings