If the allegation is evidence then we have to treat the denial as evidence too. Which one do we weigh more? We're in the same position as we were before the allegation was made. We still have to assume the accused is innocent, because that's what we assumed before the allegation was made.
My use of "unpacking" was not serious and in fact meant to be over-the-top condescending, as yours was.
I agree that it is not productive to continue this conversation. But for the record if you decide to argue against a bedrock ethical principle like the presumption of innocence, you should expect some pushback.
In the future you could probably earn more respect in debate, and perhaps even friends, by being less snarky and more respectful/charitable towards your opponent
"If the allegation is evidence then we have to treat the denial as evidence too."
Unquestionably.
"Which one do we weigh more?"
The one that is stronger evidence, in the precise mathematical sense - P(B|A)/P(B).
In the case of accusation, "the odds you are accused, given that you are guilty" may be low - let's say that only 10% of women so assaulted come forward. But the number of people accused is far less than one in ten.
In the case of denial, "the odds of denial, given innocence" is very nearly the same as "the odds of denial, regardless", so the odds don't shift back much.
So it is more likely after accusation and denial than before accusation and denial. Note that this doesn't mean that it is more probable than not, it means that it is more probable than it was. That depends on the base rate that we agree needs to be incorporated. But there being a low base rate doesn't change what is or isn't evidence, or the strength of that evidence.
"We're in the same position as we were before the allegation was made. We still have to assume the accused is innocent, because that's what we assumed before the allegation was made."
If that were true, it would make no sense to look into allegations - you'd be equally likely to find guilt looking into a random person.
'My use of "unpacking" was not serious and in fact meant to be over-the-top condescending, as yours was.'
Mine was not at all intended to be condescending. It was very specifically intended to say, "We aren't getting anywhere referring to 'presumption of innocence' without talking about what we mean by presumption of innocence", which is what I then tried to do.
"I agree that it is not productive to continue this conversation."
And yet we continue to. This isn't reflecting very well on either of us, I suppose.
"But for the record if you decide to argue against a bedrock ethical principle like the presumption of innocence, you should expect some pushback."
I was not arguing against the presumption of innocence. From my POV, I was arguing against misapplication, overextension, and dilution of the presumption of innocence. We are both of the opinion that "the presumption of innocence" as we understand it needs protecting.
"In the future you could probably earn more respect in debate, and perhaps even friends, by being less snarky and more respectful/charitable towards your opponent"
Pot, possibly lighter kettle. I fully agree we should be respectful and charitable. I try. I fail. When I fail, call me on the particular violation. You responded to perceived snark with snark, where snark wasn't even intended!
My use of "unpacking" was not serious and in fact meant to be over-the-top condescending, as yours was.
I agree that it is not productive to continue this conversation. But for the record if you decide to argue against a bedrock ethical principle like the presumption of innocence, you should expect some pushback.
In the future you could probably earn more respect in debate, and perhaps even friends, by being less snarky and more respectful/charitable towards your opponent