Explain how it is a shifting of goal posts?

(August 6, 2017 at 9:26 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Explain how it is a shifting of goal posts?

Because it's not

Let's try this another way. What if, hypothetically, we all came together in agreement that eye-witness testimony can be considered evidence. Where does the dialogue go from there?

(August 6, 2017 at 9:26 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Explain how it is a shifting of goal posts?

Shifting the burden of proof required. But we are getting off topic.... I'm more concerned with the general principles, befor discussing special cases.

---

(August 6, 2017 at 9:31 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Let's try this another way. What if, hypothetically, we all came together in agreement that eye-witness testimony can be considered evidence. Where does the dialogue go from there?

We could discuss ways in which testimony may be contaminated, limits of testimony, or other aspects in more detail.i would probably stop there though, and let you to re-assess things. Ideologies don't just change instantly. However I haven't even been really making an argument for testimony.

Hopefully at least, people would quit saying testimony is not evidence, and we wouldn't need to go back to this.

(August 6, 2017 at 9:34 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(August 6, 2017 at 9:26 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Explain how it is a shifting of goal posts?

Shifting the burden of proof required. But we are getting off topic.... I'm more concerned with the general principles, befor discussing special cases.

I have no idea what you mean here.

---

(August 6, 2017 at 9:31 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Let's try this another way.  What if, hypothetically, we all came together in agreement that eye-witness testimony can be considered evidence.  Where does the dialogue go from there?

Quote:We could discuss ways in which testimony may be contaminated, limits of testimony, or other aspects in more detail.i would probably stop there though, and let you to re-assess things. Ideologies don't just change instantly. However I haven't even been really making an argument for testimony.  

Hopefully at least, people would quit saying testimony is not evidence, and we wouldn't need to go back to this.

[/quote]

See, this is where I start to sense you are being disingenuous despite your multiple protestations.  Which ideology is it, exactly, that you feel "we" need to reassess?  I'm really trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here.

(August 6, 2017 at 9:48 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(August 6, 2017 at 9:31 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Let's try this another way.  What if, hypothetically, we all came together in agreement that eye-witness testimony can be considered evidence.  Where does the dialogue go from there?

Quote:We could discuss ways in which testimony may be contaminated, limits of testimony, or other aspects in more detail.i would probably stop there though, and let you to re-assess things. Ideologies don't just change instantly. However I haven't even been really making an argument for testimony.  

Hopefully at least, people would quit saying testimony is not evidence, and we wouldn't need to go back to this.

See, this is where I start to sense you are being disingenuous despite your multiple protestations.  Which ideology is it, exactly, that you feel "we" need to reassess?  I'm really trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here.
[/quote]

Those concerning testimony. As we have been discussing.

(August 4, 2017 at 8:14 pm)The Gentleman Bastard Wrote:

(August 4, 2017 at 8:04 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I understand where you are coming from.   And with DNA, the false convictions, was mostly the result of human error and contamination.   I do think that there are other issues, that we are just starting to come up concerning DNA, but they are more false negatives, which is what is preferred in a criminal case.  Although my understanding of the process of DNA testing, is that it is not quite as objective as is sometimes thought.  See Here  

Your argument here is a bit disingenuous since you're linking to a page regarding the difficulties of determining guilt based on DNA mixtures, yet you're applying the arguments from the link to all DNA testing. Yes, there will always be trouble determining guilt when the DNA of three or four (or more, a DNA mixture) people are taken in a swab, but a clean sample compared to a clean specimen is going to be far more accurate than you're trying to depict.

Going to ignore this forever RR?

Something else has occurred to me as well. DNA testing has resulted in hundreds (at least) of overturned convictions, just in the last couple decades. How many for eye-witness testimony? Googling it gets you plenty of eyewitness misidentification and little else. See here.

Your "case" is falling apart RR. It's not because we're atheists and want to deny your gawd through denial of testimony. It's because eyewitness testimony by itself sucks huge monkey balls.

(August 6, 2017 at 9:54 pm)The Gentleman Bastard Wrote:

(August 4, 2017 at 8:14 pm)The Gentleman Bastard Wrote: Your argument here is a bit disingenuous since you're linking to a page regarding the difficulties of determining guilt based on DNA mixtures, yet you're applying the arguments from the link to all DNA testing. Yes, there will always be trouble determining guilt when the DNA of three or four (or more, a DNA mixture) people are taken in a swab, but a clean sample compared to a clean specimen is going to be far more accurate than you're trying to depict.

Going to ignore this forever RR?

Something else has occurred to me as well. DNA testing has resulted in hundreds (at least) of overturned convictions, just in the last couple decades. How many for eye-witness testimony? Googling it gets you plenty of eyewitness misidentification and little else. See here.

Your "case" is falling apart RR. It's not because we're atheists and want to deny your gawd through denial of testimony. It's because eyewitness testimony by itself sucks huge monkey balls.

It wasn't really pertinent to the topic at hand...so I let it go.
I'd be happy to discuss, if you want to start a thread.

But remember, he doesn't want to talk about the value of testimony as it pertains to God claims even though he, himself, has as much as stated that biblical testimony should be considered evidence, because for some reason that he hasn't explained yet, that would be "shifting the goal posts."

No, RR, is called discussing the subject honestly.

(August 6, 2017 at 10:03 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: But remember, he doesn't want to talk about the value of testimony as it pertains to God claims even though he, himself, has as much as stated that biblical testimony should be considered evidence, because for some reason that he hasn't explained yet, that would be "shifting the goal posts."

No, RR, is called discussing the subject honestly.

You brought it up... I gave a quick answer, but I'm not looking into changing the topic to extraordinary claims. We have a thread for that. I, trying to not change topics.