(November 11, 2015 at 6:12 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(November 11, 2015 at 6:09 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Evidence shows me that my memories are nebulous abstractions, even though I remember them as being concrete.  For example, I have vivid memories of how people looked on certain days-- and then I look at a photograph, and think wow! that's really not how I remembered it.

I also know, through learning about psychology, how unreliable memories are, and that many childhood memories aren't memories at all, but reconstructions of things our parents have told us.

From this thread, I'm surprised the person was there at all for the photo or that you where there.

When you come face to fact with reality, and your response is sarcasm, then what does this mean?  I'd suggest it means that you are finding a way to reconcile sense with nonsense, and the balance has not yet tipped one way or the other.

Unless you want to get deeply philosophical and examine solipsism, idealism, and other critical views of our sense of reality, then you are left with an uncomfortable fact: that sarcasm is not a good substitute for actual understanding.

(November 10, 2015 at 11:31 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I have often been told by atheist that witness testimony and observation either isn't evidence, or is evidence of poor quality. I question this notion. 

It is a proven fact that memory recall sucks, pretty much in everyone.  All memory suffers from personal bias.  As time goes on, lapses occur that are filled with even more biased information.  Even immediately after the fact, each witness will have a different version.

Just because it is accepted in the courts, does not make eyewitness testimony accurate, to say the least.

ISSUES IN FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGY

Eyewitness Testimony

Let's say I'll instantly believe any anecdotes you want, thus seeing if this discussion has a point at all.

What anecdotes do you want me to believe, and more importantly, what difference do you think it should make now that I believe them?

•Every other piece of evidence has to go through our senses and minds.   Therefore every other evidence is subject to observation and the problems that all humans suffer from.


But you haven't made the case that testimony isn't subject to the same problems as other evidentiary sources (because - quite frankly - I don't think you can)

•Testimony is more inclusive.  Short of video evidence where each individual can review what happened (and more than once), human observance can tell you more about what actually happened more than any other evidence.  Tests may be able to tell you if the person was in the room (at some time) or that the person has fired a gun recently.  I'm not saying that other evidence is insignificant, but that witness testimony can often tell you more.  Witnesses can even tell you about the demeanor of the person before, during, or after the crime.


I've got serious problems with this whole section:

1.  Testimony is not 'more inclusive' than other sources of evidence.  Testimony is the report of what a person or persons saw or think they saw.

2.  Same objection, with the addition that a reconstruction of events from the physical evidence is far, FAR more compelling and valuable than accounts given by witnesses.  Don't believe me?  Ask any prosecuting attorney.

3.  And tests don't lie, or have biases, or make honest mistakes because they were sick or tired or inattentive or distracted.  Witnesses are capable of all of these things.

4.  Determining the demeanor of a person during a crime is highly subjective.  You're watching me about to shoot a person - am I fearful or angry?  You'd be amazed at how much these demeanors resemble each other.

•The sequence of events can be determined.  This can also lead to collaborating evidence.


You have this backwards.  Physical evidence is supported by eyewitness testimony, not the other way round.

•Witnesses seen what happened.  So we can have direct evidence without inference. (although sometimes it can be difficult to get a witness to give you only what they seen, without interpreting what it means).  


You must have heard about the test given to first year law students.  It the middle of the lecture, a man runs into the classroom, shouts a dozen words, takes several items off the lectern, and runs out.  The students are then asked questions like 'What did the man say?  What was he wearing?  What items did he take?  How tall was he? and so forth.  ALL students do abysmally badly on this test - it's an object lesson about the poor value of eyewitness testimony.

•Testimony can give you evidence for things that leave no other physical evidence.

And if not corroborated by physical evidence, the testimony means nothing.

•Many in intelligence and investigative professions rely heavily on witness testimony.


And they get egg on their collective face when they do so (remember all the stockpiles of chemical weapons in Iraq?)

•Observation is the best evidence for what is possible.

I once observed a stage magician appear to make his lovely assistant levitate.  This doesn't mean that levitation is possible.

Boru

More interesting memory evaluation.

How are false memories formed?

Scientific evidence is strong enough to deal with reality, testimony isn't and why the fuck should supernatural B.S. be given a get out of jail free card of special pleading assfuckery and have a fucking massively low standard by comparison? Fuck testimonial evidence for the supernatural what the fucking fuckity fuck... if God was "natural" he would require evidence but because he is "super" dicksucking natural then that means he has to fucking require a load of bullshit non-evidence instead of the real valid thing? What the cunt fuck. Seriously. No, for fuck's sake tired of this shit sometimes oh my Atheos. What the fuck. Okay, so something is totally crazy and therefore it requires less evidence instead of more... okay makes perfect sense.

Theism is just when you go into denial and care more about what you want to believe, I mean seriously if you actually think about such matters it is obvious as fuck that the whole "God" concept is utter fucking bullshitty bullshit nonsense. Oh my fuck seriously what the fucking fuckity fuck.

Come on... even deism is retarded enough. Okay "god" sits on his ass for millions of years or maybe he is an alien that created the majority of the universe but he evolved in whatever tiny portion of the universe already existed making him a redundant fucker even if he is an alien?

Oh seriously deism is retarded enough theism is a load of fuckering fuckity fuck fuck fuck balls. Oh my fuck as I said and I shall say some more: OH MY FUCK.

stop believing in bullshit people.

Like seriously it's ridiculous and childish and fucking stupid as fuck. Anyhoo ummmmmmm... so yeah:

Only way I can make sense of it in a non-childish way or a non-denial of reality and wanting to believe in silly shit to feel better way is thusly:

Some people are super fucking vulnerable to bullshit logical fallacies.

But seriously. No. Still. No, just no. Logical fallacies or not: A fucking fucker creates the universe? Seriously, no, that's retarded. What the fuck. No.

/end massive rant possibly massively more ranty than usual due to inability to cope well with having had a 3 day break from the internet recently.

(November 11, 2015 at 9:37 pm)Evie Wrote: theism is a load of fuckering fuckity fuck fuck fuck balls. Oh my fuck as I said and I shall say some more: OH MY FUCK.

Candidate for sig.

Yeah and this is me sober from all substances including even caffeine .... I've calmed down a bit more. Apologies to all for my temporary loss of sanity.

What are you apologizing for? I think it's a perfectly sufficient argument to counter religious positions.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl...s-have-it/

Quote:Why Science Tells Us Not to Rely on Eyewitness Accounts

Eyewitness testimony is fickle and, all too often, shockingly inaccurate

Quote:IN 1984 KIRK BLOODSWORTH was convicted of the rape and murder of a nine-year-old girl and sentenced to the gas chamber—an outcome that rested largely on the testimony of five eyewitnesses. After Bloodsworth served nine years in prison, DNA testing proved him to be innocent. Such devastating mistakes by eyewitnesses are not rare, according to a report by the Innocence Project, an organization affiliated with the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University that uses DNA testing to exonerate those wrongfully convicted of crimes. Since the 1990s, when DNA testing was first introduced, Innocence Project researchers have reported that 73 percent of the 239 convictions overturned through DNA testing were based on eyewitness testimony. One third of these overturned cases rested on the testimony of two or more mistaken eyewitnesses. How could so many eyewitnesses be wrong?

But what is this compared to 1,500 year old fairy tales that reinforce what believers are already desperate to believe?