(November 19, 2015 at 2:27 pm)Minimalist Wrote: I'd still like to cross examine one of the 500 fucking witnesses.

For the pain that story has helped to put upon people, in a perfect world perhaps all five hundred should be cross-examined?

Five hundred people just saw me turn coal into diamond just by touching it.

It must have happened. Are you saying five hundred people could be wrong? Five hundred! That's a lot of people. How could I fool that many people?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_Sun

Quote:The Miracle of the Sun (Portuguese: O Milagre do Sol) was an event which occurred just after midday on Sunday 13 October 1917, attended by some 30,000 to 100,000 people who were gathered near Fátima, Portugal. Several newspaper reporters were in attendance and they took testimony from many people who claimed to have witnessed extraordinary solar activity. This recorded testimony was later added to by an Italian Catholic priest and researcher in the 1940s

Quote:The ... solar phenomena were not observed in any observatory. Impossible that they should escape notice of so many astronomers and indeed the other inhabitants of the hemisphere ... there is no question of an astronomical or meteorological event phenomenon ... Either all the observers in Fátima were collectively deceived and erred in their testimony, or we must suppose an extra-natural intervention.

Did many people "witness" this? yes. Did it really happen? no.

(November 21, 2015 at 1:01 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Lastly, as stated before; much of (at least my) scientific knowledge is based on the observation and testimony of others.

When you reply to this post, use an abacus, and see how far that gets you. After you realize you cannot post with that sort of computer, perhaps you can take a few minutes to ponder exactly how the principles which govern your computer's operations were discovered.

Here's a hint: it wasn't eyewitness testimony.

Dumbfuck.

This topic does bring up an interesting point. Quite often, the difference between a sceptic and a non-sceptic is the ability to assess the reliability of one's own memories and experiences.

A sceptic acknowledges their brain can make mistakes. Their brain can be fooled. Memories can degrade, or even be implanted. The sceptic looks to validate any extremely unusual memories, or to consider them suspect.

A non-sceptic says, "I know what I saw. It was [extraordinary event]." Optionally, "My mate saw it too." (The mate is similarly infallible and an expert in categorizing unknown phenomena.)

PS: I'm not just drawing a divide between sceptic atheists and theists here. There are plenty of non-sceptic atheists who use similarly bad methods to determine what is likely to be true.

(November 21, 2015 at 4:41 am)robvalue Wrote: A non-sceptic says, "I know what I saw. It was [extraordinary event]." Optionally, "My mate saw it too." (The mate is similarly infallible and an expert in categorizing unknown phenomena.)

I once saw what my brain interpreted as a chicken in the road ahead. I commented what a bummer that the chicken got run over and my passenger agreed. The brain tries to make sense with what information it has on record (biases included) with what is perceived at the moment. In this case, my comment would have biased the passenger's observation also, ergo the agreement. As we got closer, it was obvious that we were both mistaken and saw that it was just a palm leaf.

It is very easy to transfer biased information as shown in a sundry of experiments on witness testimony.

Yeah, too true. Loads of times I've "seen" things that I could have sworn were something or other at the time, but it became clear I was totally mistaken afterwards. If I hadn't have seen the evidence showing me I was wrong, I'd have continued with the faulty belief.

And when you particularly want to see certain things (ghosts and shit) you're more likely to see them when your brain fills in the blanks.

(November 21, 2015 at 3:16 am)Cato Wrote:

(November 21, 2015 at 1:01 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Lastly, as stated before; much of (at least my) scientific knowledge is based on the observation and testimony of others.

Let's cut through the bullshit. Science leaves behind a trail of method and observation, which anyone that chooses to do so can replicate. If the findings are different, science leaves open the possibility of error, always welcoming correction. You are attempting to conflate this 'testimony of others' with the non-repeatable claims of superstitious ignorant ancients.

You're simply wrong. You can either admit your error or apologize to everyone for your intentional obfuscation. The only other alternative is for us to believe you are too fucking stupid to understand the distinction. The facts are plain; the perceptive truth is up to you.

I believe that you are missing the point. I'm not saying that an event that happens once, and a description of how natural forces proceed are the same. There is certainly an advantage of being repeatable. However, there is also a difference in what is being claimed. Even if further experiments show the prior scientific claims to be incorrect, it doesn't mean the initial claim is necessarily lying, or deluded about their results. It means they are incorrect about why they got their results or that some factor is missing.

A claim that is repeatable, does mean that more people can witness to what is claimed. However even some scientific tests cannot be repeated by everyone, as they destroy the evidence being tested. You do seem to be validating that multiple witnesses are better testimony. But even if it is possible, that I could tests a claim, it is unfeasable for me to have the expertise, time, and money to test every claim, so I must rely on the testimony of those who have. And in regards to history, it is unreasonable to expect this.

Who is stopping you believing anything you want about history?

I give up.

Eyewitness testimony relies solely on memory. Scientific testimony relies on recorded data that can be perused again and again.