Zero skepticism would mean a hundred percent confidence, as though I claimed the papers and their conclusions and the conclusions to be drawn from them were certain. I didn't claim any certainty, I just presented them as some evidence rather than offer you nothing. Give you something to read. Let you judge for yourself. Like a rational person. That doesn't mean I uncritically endorse everything that's in them, necessarily. I've read the same contentions you've brought up in that Farrel book so it seems I'm running into a range of stock arguments.
I'm not using first year logic terminology to make myself look smart, I genuinely think what you said was an attempt to misrepresent an opposing argument. You even put it in quote marks.
Problems with the Kanin paper. Polygraphs. Allegations of intimidation. All coming from one jurisdiction. The bias of the police department operating under the assumption that a large number of rape allegations are false. Circular reasoning. Unquestioning acceptance of the police reports from Kanin. Complete reliance on the police's conclusions. The possibility of victim intimidation from a disbelieving police force.
For a sample size of 300 with a population of 601,515 the 99% confidence interval is +/-7.45%. That's not very good, really.
Other problems with McDowell; the indicators were common in the false rape claims but not unique. That kills it immediately. It's not like every false claim had all these indicators; many did, and it's not like no true claims had them. I don't even have any information about how much overlap there was but I do have information about what the indicators are and many of these are common to a lot of genuine incidences of rape. The study's useless, really.
About applying military stats to the general population. I don't know what the differences might be; that's not how statistics works. I just know that it's not a random sample. There may or may not be significant differences but it makes the findings statistically invalid, if they weren't already faulty.
You said he repeated the study with non-military people, but in those cases did he have known false rape claims to check the indicators against? Or was he still using the data from the military study?