By putting "knows" between scare quotes like that, they are directly implying that unless the friend can present some kind of irrefutable proof, then they shouldn't be believed on the topic of whether Andy has schizophrenia or DID or not, even though it's ALREADY plainly obvious he doesn't have either.
No, it doesn't directly imply that. That's your interpretation. What people are talking about is different the levels of certainty and knowledge.
For example, I know with almost absolutely certainty (baring hallucinations or a Matrix-type scenario) that I am typing on a computer right now. I would also say that I know with almost absolute certainty the sun will rise tomorrow. There are also things I know beyond a reasonable doubt, like the fact that my parents are my biological parents.
The you have facts which we can reasonably accept as true, and then after that, things we strongly suspect but cannot confirm to be facts. I am willing to accept as true that Andy is living with his parents, for example. I strongly suspect Andy has abused his sister more than we know publicly, but I cannot offer any proof of that.
When anon graciously came and shared her information, people wanted to know why her friend she came to the conclusions she did. It wasn't that people didn't believe her conclusions, or that they were interrogating her for that reason. Most people here already accept the things she posted. What people wanted to know was if her friend had any new evidence, because evidence-based information is more powerful and more useful than information based on good guesses and reasonable assumptions. That doesn't mean anon's post wasn't helpful as it was, though.
Re: TW mi/suicide
By putting "knows" between scare quotes like that, they are directly implying that unless the friend can present some kind of irrefutable proof, then they shouldn't be believed on the topic of whether Andy has schizophrenia or DID or not, even though it's ALREADY plainly obvious he doesn't have either.
No, it doesn't directly imply that. That's your interpretation. What people are talking about is different the levels of certainty and knowledge.
For example, I know with almost absolutely certainty (baring hallucinations or a Matrix-type scenario) that I am typing on a computer right now. I would also say that I know with almost absolute certainty the sun will rise tomorrow. There are also things I know beyond a reasonable doubt, like the fact that my parents are my biological parents.
The you have facts which we can reasonably accept as true, and then after that, things we strongly suspect but cannot confirm to be facts. I am willing to accept as true that Andy is living with his parents, for example. I strongly suspect Andy has abused his sister more than we know publicly, but I cannot offer any proof of that.
When anon graciously came and shared her information, people wanted to know why her friend she came to the conclusions she did. It wasn't that people didn't believe her conclusions, or that they were interrogating her for that reason. Most people here already accept the things she posted. What people wanted to know was if her friend had any new evidence, because evidence-based information is more powerful and more useful than information based on good guesses and reasonable assumptions. That doesn't mean anon's post wasn't helpful as it was, though.