>
>Well, there can't be good evidence proving *both* x and not-x. We at least
>know that. But I'm not a social scientist and haven't reviewed the
>literature extensively. I do want that to be clear.
>
Of course there can. Of COURSE there can. Happens all the time. Mon ami, I'm a lawyer, and what happens in court, you see, is that the parties come in with good evidence, each of them, proving x and not-x, respectively, and the jury decides. If there isn't good evidence for both x and not-x, we have two levels of process to weed out the case, and it doesn't get to the jury.
Moreover, I also used to be, maybe still am in my voluminous spare time, (ha ha) a philosopher of science, and there's a doctrine called the underdetermination of theory by evidence which summarizes the almsot universally accepted fact, in the circles of people who think about these things, that any given body of evidence can support at least two inconsistent theories. Yhat is, the _very same evidence_ can be good evidence of x and not-x. Any practicing scientist, social or or other, will tell you that is true.
So there you are. Enjoy your porn debate. I think Kendell's substantive MacKinnonite views are repressive and reactionary, but haven't time to discuss them.
jks
_________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx