No? I think it’s fair to assume that the flow of information is unilateral for a reason, and it’s also fair to interpret evidence accordingly. One side is trying to completely control the narrative. That party needs to be treated with more scrutiny, and the party who is unable to properly produce evidence because of the other’s actions needs to be afforded more leeway. Why would it not be so?
Think of it like a court. If one party didn’t respond to any requests for discovery, the other party would be designated as fact in those matters where disclosure wasn’t provided. This is to account for the information asymmetry.
Also, I was being somewhat terse before, I didn’t mean to imply anyone should be beyond all question.
That doesn’t logically follow at all.
Are you not trying to educate yourself as best as possible, given the information available?
Of course, but questionable or unsubstantiated reports don’t suddenly become 100% credible simply because they are the only information available.
Nobody thinks they become 100% credible.
The person I responded to literally said that they would take the report “at face value”, which means you accept it unquestioningly.
You accepting it doesn’t imply that the source is credible; you just don’t have any alternative.
No? I think it’s fair to assume that the flow of information is unilateral for a reason, and it’s also fair to interpret evidence accordingly. One side is trying to completely control the narrative. That party needs to be treated with more scrutiny, and the party who is unable to properly produce evidence because of the other’s actions needs to be afforded more leeway. Why would it not be so?
Think of it like a court. If one party didn’t respond to any requests for discovery, the other party would be designated as fact in those matters where disclosure wasn’t provided. This is to account for the information asymmetry.
Also, I was being somewhat terse before, I didn’t mean to imply anyone should be beyond all question.