[dragonwriter]

> You didn't really answer my question, you just assured me that your opinion is right.

Its not an opinion; whether we have a method of resolution is a verifiable question of fact, and the answer is yes, we do.

Juries make decisions where the key evidence is conflicting testimony of two witnesses all the time, where the other evidence, if any, isn't directly on the primary question but the reliability of the witnesses.

Usually, this will resolve against the accuser where the US criminal standard of proof (beyond a reasonable doubt) applies, and have more mixed results where lower standards, like the preponderance of the evidence or clear and convincing evidence standards used for various purposes (e.g., usual judgements and permanent restraining orders, respectively) in the US civil justice system, apply.

Whether this resolution mechanism has satisfactory results is, of course, a subjective question.