(August 23, 2017 at 1:22 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(August 22, 2017 at 10:03 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: How do you not know what I mean...?   I've only been yapping at you about it across three threads.

If I claim that I saw a black Dodge Charger on the way home from the park today, is my witness testimony, alone, sufficient to convince you my claim is true?

If I claim that I saw a gremlin eating the wheels off of a black Dodge Charger on the way home from the park today, is my witness testimony, alone, sufficient to convince you my claim is true?

This is an easy one, RR.

Re-posting this because I don't want RR to "forget" to respond.  😏

I think that this falls more into the realm of the extraordinary claims thread, but I'll give you a quick reply.  Personally, I don't think it is right to dismiss evidence, just because it goes against my understanding or view. Or because of personal incredulity.  If it is just one person, I'm probably going to remain skeptical.   If there are a number of independent people reporting the second account, all over town, I'm certainly going to give it consideration, if there isn't reason against it.

And this is an area that is still debated by philosophers on the epistemology of testimony today.   Some siding on the rights of the receiver of the information to reject that information.  They have concerns about mistakes or the testifier's ability to deceive.  On the other side, there is a problem with justifying the dismissal of information because it goes against your experiences or beliefs without any other reason. This impedes growth and knowledge.   I obviously lean more towards the latter camp and are not a reductionist.  I suppose that it may also deal with if you are more concerned with false positives or false negatives (where would you rather be wrong)

The one thing, that I haven't seen in researching this topic, is the discussion is the inclusion of multiple independent testimonies (it normally only deals with one item of testimony).  With only a single testimony, I think I am more conservative and skeptical myself. I also think that this type of conversation takes a little bit of abstract thinking in forming principles.   Are your principles set up, to pander to what you believe, and reject opposing information, or are you willing to accept new information and possibly change your views.  What if you don't know which side the evidence is going to point to... does your reasoning still follow?

(August 23, 2017 at 2:11 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(August 23, 2017 at 2:01 pm)SteveII Wrote: I agree. Words are not capable of conveying truth value simply because they were asserted. So the witness's character, cognitive ability, subject knowledge, experiences, and track record plus the context of the event provide tangible and necessary inputs in determining the weight of testimonial evidence toward a conclusion. It is the inseparable package of these things together that form "evidence".

And the fact is, a person can have upstanding character, sharp cognitive abilities, a plethora of knowledge and experience with the subject, and a phenomenal track record, and yet...still be wrong about what they are recalling.

Such is the irrefutable unreliability of testimony, no matter how badly you guys want to muddle and over-complicate the matter.

A person can absolutely be wrong in their recollection. But it does not follow that if a person could be wrong in his recollection that all personal testimony is unreliable. It only follows that testimony could be unreliable. The other side of the coin that you did not mention was context--which is inseparable from the testimony and can weigh heavily in the assessment of the testimony. 

Your premise and conclusion:

1. A person's recollection could be wrong
2. Therefore all testimony is unreliable.

Really, it more like:

1' A person's recollection could be wrong
2' The witness's character, cognitive ability, subject knowledge, experiences, and track record serve can minimize the possibility of error
3 The context of the event can minimize the possibility of error
4 Therefore the reliability of testimony varies depending on the witness and the context

---

(August 23, 2017 at 2:13 pm)Khemikal Wrote:

(August 23, 2017 at 2:01 pm)SteveII Wrote: I agree. Words are not capable of conveying truth value simply because they were asserted. So the witness's character, cognitive ability, subject knowledge, experiences, and track record plus the context of the event provide tangible and necessary inputs in determining the weight of testimonial evidence toward a conclusion. It is the inseparable package of these things together that form "evidence".

Gee, that's alot of shit -outside of the testimony-...it's almost as if you don't think testimony is evidence at all........it's almost as if the value of testimony is determined by corroborating evidence. [1]

So, tell me, what do you know about "Paul"'s

Quote:character, cognitive ability, subject knowledge, experiences, and track record

Or, perhaps....magic book's

Quote: context of the event provide tangible and necessary inputs in determining the weight of testimonial evidence toward a conclusion.

? [2]

Uh-huh.  I enjoy watching this collapse like flan in a cupboard.  So, not only does testimony not meet the description you previously gave of evidence...in order to even asses it as...what(?)...you need all of this other stuff?

1. You missed the point entirely. The definition of testimony necessarily includes these things. You want to separate them because it strengthens your argument, but you are simply wrong. They cannot be separated. 

2. This is not the topic of discussion in the philosophy subforum.

---

(August 23, 2017 at 2:26 pm)Redbeard The Pink Wrote:

(August 22, 2017 at 3:17 pm)SteveII Wrote: Most of the time you don't get physical evidence--especially for events. So, the best evidence possible is often going to be testimonial evidence.

No, I'd say that events which really happen typically leave behind some kind of physical evidence of themselves. Much of our written history, for instance, has been either supported or refuted by archaeological evidence. Eye witness accounts can be supported or refuted by forensic evidence. Stopping at testimony is not a path to truth.

from a similar reply on page 20:

If one is testifying of an event, this testimony very well might be the only evidence you will ever be able to examine. For example:

1. Actions witnessed: someone running, weaving in and out of traffic, aimed his gun at the clerk.
2. Conditions witnessed through the five senses like at 8am I was sleeping, smelling gasoline, hearing an argument in the next apartment, the light was off. 
3. Interactions like the man shoved me out of the way, the stranger gave me a dollar for a coffee, I gave my bus seat to the old lady.
4. Conversations like Fred said he would shoot my dog if it shit on his lawn again or that Mary said she is having a bad day. 

Tell me, a week following any of these events, what physical evidence would be readily available to examine if the event really happened?  A month? A year? There are billions of such things every minute of every day happening in the world.

(August 23, 2017 at 2:42 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(August 23, 2017 at 1:22 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Re-posting this because I don't want RR to "forget" to respond.  😏

I think that this falls more into the realm of the extraordinary claims thread...

Full stop.  I'm not doing this dance with you again, RR.  If you want to talk about testimony you have to be willing to talk about the full spectrum of the nature of claims people often testify to. The two concepts are fully intertwined.  Arbitrarily separating them out because it suits your...we'll say...particular needs, is dishonest.  End of story.

Quote: I'll give you a quick reply.  Personally, I don't think it is right to dismiss evidence, just because it goes against my understanding or view. Or because of personal incredulity.  If it is just one person, I'm probably going to remain skeptical.   If there are a number of independent people reporting the second account, all over town, I'm certainly going to give it consideration, if there isn't reason against it.

Just to clarify...you're going to give consideration to the claim that gremlins were eating the wheels off of a car?  Or do you mean you're going to consider that people seem to have witnessed  something peculiar, and perhaps wait for further evidence before you come to a conclusion?  By all means, if your answer is the former, don't be ashamed.  You've come this far.

Quote:And this is an area that is still debated by philosophers on the epistemology of testimony today.   Some siding on the rights of the receiver of the information to reject that information.  They have concerns about mistakes or the testifier's ability to deceive.  On the other side, there is a problem with justifying the dismissal of information because it goes against your experiences or beliefs without any other reason. This impedes growth and knowledge.   I obviously lean more towards the latter camp and are not a reductionist.  I suppose that it may also deal with if you are more concerned with false positives or false negatives (where would you rather be wrong)

Please, RR.  If you want to talk about the philosophy and epistemology of testimony, you should make a separate thread for it.  😏

Quote:The one thing, that I haven't seen in researching this topic, is the discussion is the inclusion of multiple independent testimonies (it normally only deals with one item of testimony).  With only a single testimony, I think I am more conservative and skeptical myself. I also think that this type of conversation takes a little bit of abstract thinking in forming principles.   Are your principles set up, to pander to what you believe, and reject opposing information, or are you willing to accept new information and possibly change your views?

Isn't this a question you should be asking your self?  

Quote:If you don't know which side the evidence is going to point to... does your reasoning still follow?

What would be sufficient evidence to convince you that gremlins exist, and one was seen eating the tires of a Dodge Charger?  Ten witnesses?  Twenty?  Twenty thousand?  Would twenty thousand people's testimony convince you gremlins are real?  

I have never witnessed such elaborate tap dancing in my life

(August 23, 2017 at 3:44 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: What would be sufficient evidence to convince you that gremlins exist, and one was seen eating the tires of a Dodge Charger?  Ten witnesses?  Twenty?  Twenty thousand?  Would twenty thousand people's testimony convince you gremlins are real?  

I have never witnessed such elaborate tap dancing in my life

I'm guessing about a dozen people would suffice, given they had access to parchment.

(August 23, 2017 at 2:14 pm)bennyboy Wrote:

(August 23, 2017 at 10:24 am)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: You could just as easily have said that Judas was the real hero or something like that. Either way it's not like I've never been a complete ass so I cannot fault you too much for using hyperbole now and then. You're one of my favorite members and I hate to see you start treating believers with contempt like so many do. Roadrunner has been taking the high road on this one.

(bold mine)
High horse, you mean.  RR keeps insisting that he's just interested in the idea of testimonial in general, and that he is definitely NOT talking about religious ideas.  However, based on how the thread has unfolded, I find this so highly implausible that I've openly declared I that I believe him to be lying.  

What specifically on how the thread has unfolded (from me)  makes you think that this is highly implausible to the point where you think I'm lying?   Personally, I think that for many of the atheist who keep trying to force the conversation to be about God, and are so concerned with unspoken motivation; shows that they are more focused and influenced by this than I.  

Quote:Why do we not have several examples of testimony to examine and consider?  Anyone with a general interest in jurisprudence would produce some typical examples: identifying people in a lineup, for example, or dependence on potentially unreliable "expert" witnesses; in a matter of a minute, I could probably produce a list of 10 or 20 examples worth discussion.  I've just scrolled through 20 pages of this thread, and found a conspicuous absence of testimonial cases whose evidentiary value we are to consider.  

It's like I made a thread about the value of cars, but carefully refrained from ever mentioning any actual cars.  Why would I do that?

If you want to talk about the value of eye witness testimony.  It has value in that apart from many other forms of evidence (except for maybe video or audio recording), it can tell you a lot more about what happened, not just the results.  Testimony can tell you what was said or what lead up to the event in question.  It can tell you if it was self defense, or who instigated things.  If other people witnessed the event, or where involved.  It can point you to other evidence, that you did not know about, and can tell you about what happened elsewhere. It can tell you why there is particular physical evidence present which may point you in the wrong direction. It tells you about things that did not leave any physical evidence. Basically, it may give you a more complete picture, than indirect evidence alone and the inferences that may follow.

(August 23, 2017 at 4:05 pm)bennyboy Wrote:

(August 23, 2017 at 3:44 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: What would be sufficient evidence to convince you that gremlins exist, and one was seen eating the tires of a Dodge Charger?  Ten witnesses?  Twenty?  Twenty thousand?  Would twenty thousand people's testimony convince you gremlins are real?  

I have never witnessed such elaborate tap dancing in my life

I'm guessing about a dozen people would suffice, given they had access to parchment.

*snort* 😂

(August 23, 2017 at 2:53 pm)SteveII Wrote: 1. You missed the point entirely. The definition of testimony necessarily includes these things. You want to separate them because it strengthens your argument, but you are simply wrong. They cannot be separated. 

No it doesn't. 

Quote:2. This is not the topic of discussion in the philosophy subforum.

Then why does it keep getting threads....lelz?

RR, what's your takeaway on the value of testimony as evidence, given the content of the threads on the subject that you've participated in?

(August 23, 2017 at 3:44 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(August 23, 2017 at 2:42 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I think that this falls more into the realm of the extraordinary claims thread...

Full stop.  I'm not doing this dance with you again, RR.  If you want to talk about testimony you have to be willing to talk about the full spectrum of the nature of claims people often testify to.  The two concepts are fully intertwined.  Arbitrarily separating them out because it suits your...we'll say...particular needs, is dishonest.  End of story.

Isn't it more your position to separate them out?  Also I was talking about general principles concerning testimony. And if you are saying that there are special circumstances which don't follow these principles, then your justification of that is a different topic.  Also, I am having enough difficulty talking about what I created the thread for; without being called dishonest and having my motives questioned.   I don't think this helps.  We had a thread recently on extraordinary claims, and perhaps if you wanted to discuss them, then you should either posted there, or if you would have posted the thread when I invited you to, then you could control what you wanted to talk about.

Quote:

Quote:I'll give you a quick reply.  Personally, I don't think it is right to dismiss evidence, just because it goes against my understanding or view. Or because of personal incredulity.  If it is just one person, I'm probably going to remain skeptical.   If there are a number of independent people reporting the second account, all over town, I'm certainly going to give it consideration, if there isn't reason against it.

Just to clarify...you're going to give consideration to the claim that gremlins were eating the wheels off of a car?  Or do you mean you're going to consider that people seem to have witnessed  something peculiar, and perhaps wait for further evidence before you come to a conclusion?  By all means, if your answer is the former, don't be ashamed.  You've come this far.

Probably depends on what the testimony is.

Quote:

Quote:And this is an area that is still debated by philosophers on the epistemology of testimony today.   Some siding on the rights of the receiver of the information to reject that information.  They have concerns about mistakes or the testifier's ability to deceive.  On the other side, there is a problem with justifying the dismissal of information because it goes against your experiences or beliefs without any other reason. This impedes growth and knowledge.   I obviously lean more towards the latter camp and are not a reductionist.  I suppose that it may also deal with if you are more concerned with false positives or false negatives (where would you rather be wrong)

Please, RR.  If you want to talk about the philosophy and epistemology of testimony, you should make a separate thread for it.  😏

A little less formal, but this thread is about the epistemology of testimony.

Quote:

Quote:The one thing, that I haven't seen in researching this topic, is the discussion is the inclusion of multiple independent testimonies (it normally only deals with one item of testimony).  With only a single testimony, I think I am more conservative and skeptical myself. I also think that this type of conversation takes a little bit of abstract thinking in forming principles.   Are your principles set up, to pander to what you believe, and reject opposing information, or are you willing to accept new information and possibly change your views?

Isn't this a question you should be asking your self?  

I often do (though I'm sure someone will accuse me of dishonesty)  but isn't the question shouldn't we all?

Quote:

Quote:If you don't know which side the evidence is going to point to... does your reasoning still follow?

What would be sufficient evidence to convince you that gremlins exist, and one was seen eating the tires of a Dodge Charger?  Ten witnesses?  Twenty?  Twenty thousand?  Would twenty thousand people's testimony convince you gremlins are real?  

I have never witnessed such elaborate tap dancing in my life

I think that the observation of a gremlin either by myself or others (or something that fits that description) is sufficient evidence that it exists.  As to the number... I don't know if there is a absolute value (there are a number of variables), and it depends on the testimony itself, and how good it is.  If I seen it, then a couple of other people to confirm what I saw and not hallucinating; I think would be sufficient (because I can rule out lying at least in myself).  And if there isn't reason against it, a few more from testimony alone.

(August 23, 2017 at 2:53 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(August 23, 2017 at 2:11 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: And the fact is, a person can have upstanding character, sharp cognitive abilities, a plethora of knowledge and experience with the subject, and a phenomenal track record, and yet...still be wrong about what they are recalling.

Such is the irrefutable unreliability of testimony, no matter how badly you guys want to muddle and over-complicate the matter.

A person can absolutely be wrong in their recollection. But it does not follow that if a person could be wrong in his recollection that all personal testimony is unreliable. It only follows that testimony could be unreliable. The other side of the coin that you did not mention was context--which is inseparable from the testimony and can weigh heavily in the assessment of the testimony. 

Your premise and conclusion:

1. A person's recollection could be wrong
2. Therefore all testimony is unreliable.

No. Intended or not, this is straw. It goes more like this:

1. Witness testimony is demonstrably unreliable.  (Innocent misremembering due to the falliable nature of human memory, as I mentioned in the post you quoted above, is only one of many factors that contribute to erroneous witness testimony.)

2. Therefore, I and any other rational person, in the interest of reason and truth, should wait for corroborating evidence before believing any claim beyond the most mundane, where being wrong in that belief carries little to no serious consequences.  And, especially before believing claims of the "supernatural" variety, which carry far-reaching and deep-seeded consequences such as the defining of one's world views, and the ways in which we value our lives, and the lives of others.

There's that relevant context you were talking about. 😉