The problem with your definition of “baseless” is that you render the word meaningless.
If I make the claim that I told you something, by your definition my claim can never be “baseless” because it is based on “my recollection” that I told you something.
But in fact, it is NOT based on my “recollection”. My “recollection” is merely a hypothesis you make, or an assertion I make. How do you KNOW I am basing my claim on my recollection? Only because I TOLD you. But I could be lying about that, as well as lying about what I claim I told you.
You cannot claim a basis for an argument based on the statement of the person making the argument. It is self-referential, and therefore unsupportive.
The point in evaluating ANY claim is to decide whether the claim is true or false. In order to do so, you must look for some kind of measure by which the claim can be judged.
Generally, there are two measures. First is personal — an evaluation of the veracity of the person making the claim. That is important if the claim is about something that is, as in this case, a personal claim. Would the person lie about a claim they make regarding their own actions.
But we wouldn’t use the term “not baseless” (baseless is a natural negative) in regards to an argument from authority (which is what this first type of argument is). Authority can be asserted, and evaluated, but it isn’t generally considered something that makes a claim fact-based (which is the loose antonym of “baseless).
The second measure is facts, evidence that supports the claim. That evidence must be exterior to the claim itself; anything contained within the claim can at best be judged by authority.
So you can’t claim as “evidence” for being told something the “fact” that the person who says they told that thing also says the remember telling it. They are part and parcel of the same claim.
Evidence would be a witness, or a written or recorded record, or a later conversation that reveals knowledge of what was said in the conversation. More inferential evidence would be evidence that other similar things were discussed, or that the person has a record of asking about the thing you say you discussed.
But Cain has presented NONE of this. No direct evidence, and in fact makes the claim that there would be no evidence. No record of Anderson telling anybody else. No written record, no recording, no later conversation.
For an argument to have a basis, and not be baseless, it is virtually always the cacse that the argument COULD be refuted; then the inability to refute it is part of the basis for it’s truth. In this case, there is NOTHING Anderson can do to refute Cain’s claim. Because Cain offers no evidence, only Cain’s own insistance of his own truthfulness, Anderson CANNOT present competing evidence to counter the claim.
All Anderson can do is assert he was NOT told. Which assertion is also “baseless”, but by necessity, because you cannot prove somethign didn’t happen, when the person making the claim has claimed there were no witnesses. How would Anderson refute the claim? Well, he could argue that he and Cain were NEVER in a room alone with the door closed. He could argue he ALWAYS taped his conversations. But even if he produced tapes, or had people who said the were often called into meetings, Cain could still insist that this ONE TIME they were alone.
So in the end, the 1st part of cain’s claim is a simple he-said, he-aaid dispute. Two people with a competing narrative, neither of which can provide ANY evidence other than their own self-referential statements. That is a useless debate; you can only judge based on your personal opinion of the two men’s character and likelyhood of truthfulness. But those things involve personal involvement. I bet people who are friends with Cain would side with him, and Anderson’s friends would side with him. No rational basis for making a determination.
The 2nd claim is much more easily refuted by Anderson, and he has done a great job. And Cain has NOTHING to back his claim — not even a self-referential argument, since Cain doesn’t provide any evidence that Cain would be in any position to know anything about the conversation politico had with anybody.
No not at all. One who makes an accusation based on a lie is making a baseless accusation. One who makes an accusation based on an unprovable truth is NOT making a baseless accusation. They are making an accusation that is simply unprovable.
For example if one alone witnesses a murder, accuses the murderer but can't prove his accusation, his accusation is not baseless. A baseless accusation is one that is based on a falsehood.
For another example, if a bear poops in the woods and only one person sees it, and reports it, then the bear pooping is still fact, and the person reporting it is not making a baseless claim, but only an unprovable claim.
The word "baseless" is not rendered meaningless as you claim. Is can be used when one can prove a false accusation.