I'm suggesting that 100% of the population of accused rapists are accused rapists, and 5% of them are falsely accused. I'm not saying anything at all about the population at large, but for some reason you are.

A better and more relevant approach to determining the likelihood of guilt of a specific existing allegation is to ignore the population at large that no one is talking about, and determine what percentage of people who ARE accused of rape are falsely vs correctly accused.

Ok, I understand where our differences are, thank you. You are not saying anything at all about the population at large, and if I understand correctly, you believe all the rape-related statistics have no bearing whatsoever on the population at large, thus one can not do the calculations I had done here.

I reject this notion completely.

1. your view implies rapists and the population at large are completely independent, its as if they exist on different planes of existence or live on two different planets. But we know this is not true, rapists unfortunately form a subset of the population at large.

2. When you ignore the population at large completely, you are effectively treating the false accusation rate regarding the population as 0. We also know this is not true, it is definitely lower than 2-10%, but it is not zero.

3. Given that the two groups coexist with known composition, my method is correct. What we need is to find an

*appropriate* false positive rate so that the output is 2-10%. Interestingly, in laserlady's calculation, it was achieved with a false positive rate of 0.1%. So now we need to ask ourselves, is this rate reasonable? I have no clue if it is, if you have studies that assert this I would be happy to see them.

No one is accused of rape by random chance.

This is both true and false. Because conventionally, to be named a suspect by the victim, one must already know (or usually have some form of prior contact) the victim beforehand. But one needs not to be accused randomly. I am not claiming one is accused of rape by random chance.

My method details that given

*only* the fp and fn rates, the likelihood of some random person I see on the news being actually guilty is y in the absence of hard physical evidence. It is very important to understand this part.

Does testimony carry no weight with you? What if one person's story checks out and the other person is shown to be a dirty rotten liar? Regardless of which side is which, I don't think you need physical evidence of a crime to establish the credibility of a witness.

I have seen enough people poking holes to both versions of the stories, with both parties changing their versions overtime. If I had to pick a side, then yes, I found Dr. Ford's testimonies to be much more credible, but I can not condemn BK on this ground alone. People are naturally unreliable narrators, especially under pressure. I will fully accept the final FBI result, whatever the outcome, because I believe in due process. I believe in due process so much that even IF, against all odds, Mueller came out and said there were no collusion by Trump, I would still accept it.

I am sorry if you feel I've hijacked the thread.